6 core cpu's

[FaTtY-mIc-FaTFaT]

um, dont really know about cpu's myself, but i think amd is for the every day household. people who just use it to game and watch movies and like to have many things opened. it also runs a little bit hotter then intel, but is great for gaming.

intel, like everyone said i think is also aimed at the bigger companies. every company i have worked for now, drug stores, music, dj's, they all go with intel. one of the guys i worked with during my time in a dj company, he was the tech guy there. he built all the computers that company uses and tells me that if you want something for gaming, go with amd, intel is more business. amd is also cheaper.

so, meh. i still like amd tho, yet to fail me XD but im fine with quad, still wanted the 6 core

and on top of that, nothing really has come out that uses 3 cores to its full potential, so bah.

 

[NCA]

The current 6-core lineup from AMD isn't worth the effort. I'm happy with my i7 920 + SSD for the time being. The only upgrade I'm getting this year is more RAM.

 

[GBear]

um, dont really know about cpu's myself, but i think amd is for the every day household. people who just use it to game and watch movies and like to have many things opened. it also runs a little bit hotter then intel, but is great for gaming.

intel, like everyone said i think is also aimed at the bigger companies. every company i have worked for now, drug stores, music, dj's, they all go with intel. one of the guys i worked with during my time in a dj company, he was the tech guy there. he built all the computers that company uses and tells me that if you want something for gaming, go with amd, intel is more business. amd is also cheaper.

so, meh. i still like amd tho, yet to fail me XD but im fine with quad, still wanted the 6 core

and on top of that, nothing really has come out that uses 3 cores to its full potential, so bah.

Not necessarily true. Yes, AMD is better for price per performance but AMD is not necessarily "better" for gaming. But if you're willing to pay a little more, I would definitely go Intel. Back in the old days, AMD used to lead in gaming by a long shot. It's not so much anymore.

 

[lordknight]

tigerdirect.com sold them fast they had an AMD Phenom™ II X6 1055T Six-Core 2.8GHz for 199 with 50 rebated = 149 with free shipping

 

[metro]

Well, my overclocked i7-930 is still getting the job done.

Plus, AMD is about 3 years behind Intel in the technology advancement stages.

How is AMD 3 years behind? AMD has never had the best processor on the market, but they'll sell you more cores for your case. And if you're running multi thread programs the PII x6 will easily beat a 17-930 (Proof).

i have a AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core Processor at 2.1 and my cus ass a intell anfd i forgot the model but it a dual core at 3.2 and running crysis at fill res mines the fps is like 68 fps and his is like 20 to 15 spd and wre r running the same grafcard and 3g of ram and i dont know y im going with this but i thing amd is way better for gaming

Perhaps you cousin is running the game on higher settings than you. Because, if you're running a dual core, there is no way you could get 68fps with max settings in Crysis.

 

[mad pistol]

Those of you that have i7's really shouldn't get your panties in a wad. You already have a great processor that's easily one of the fastest on the market. The 6 core AMD is simply a stepping stone to something greater. You have to admit that the idea of a 6 core processor is pretty cool. For those of us that actually have an AM2+/AM3 based system, it's a viable option in the future once more apps make use of it.

These processors are great value for the money. The i7's are still quicker. That's fine. It wasn't the purpose of these 6 core processors to suddenly dethrone the mighty i7's. They're still great all around processors, and they offer a compelling deal for not a lot of money.

 

[GBear]

Those of you that have i7's really shouldn't get your panties in a wad. You already have a great processor that's easily one of the fastest on the market. The 6 core AMD is simply a stepping stone to something greater. You have to admit that the idea of a 6 core processor is pretty cool. For those of us that actually have an AM2+/AM3 based system, it's a viable option in the future once more apps make use of it.

These processors are great value for the money. The i7's are still quicker. That's fine. It wasn't the purpose of these 6 core processors to suddenly dethrone the mighty i7's. They're still great all around processors, and they offer a compelling deal for not a lot of money.

Yep, that's for sure. You can't beat AMD in price per performance but if you want the best speed, you go to Intel.

 

[NixJedi]

How is AMD 3 years behind? AMD has never had the best processor on the market, but they'll sell you more cores for your case. And if you're running multi thread programs the PII x6 will easily beat a 17-930 (Proof).

Again, comparing a quad-core to a hex-core of the same 45nm manufacturing process (Not AMD's 45nm with no upgraded L3 cache to Intel's 32nm with 50% upgraded L3 cache); not taking overclocking in to consideration; or specific machine component conditions either (Board specs, cooling specs, hard drive/SSD use, RAM clock speeds and quality, etc.).

Yep, that's for sure. You can't beat AMD in price per performance but if you want the best speed, you go to Intel.

And then comes back up the topic that still almost no programs on earth fully utilize quad-core processors yet (let alone are even programmed to see all cores).

Moving on to hex-core processors on an outdated 45nm manufacturing process was a bad move for AMD, especially considering that when Intel added two cores to the Nehalem (AND used the 32nm manufacturing process) it also increased the L3 cache of the i7-980X chip by 50%. The Phenom II X6 doesn't have an increased cache with the two extra cores. The 6 cores have to share the same 6MB L3 cache as the quad-core version.

For the cost, it's awesome - down the road it's a stupid decision because of it's bottlenecking specs...

 

[reflex99]

How is AMD 3 years behind? AMD has never had the best processor on the market, but they'll sell you more cores for your case. And if you're running multi thread programs the PII x6 will easily beat a 17-930 (Proof).

socket 939 would beg to differ

<-- amd fan boi

 

[NixJedi]

socket 939 would beg to differ

<-- amd fan boi

Touch?, I had a 939 Socket Athlon X2 4200+, then an AM2 Socket Athlon X2 6400+ Black Edition. They were cheap (I was in grade school) and did the job for me.

This is my first Intel (i7), and I'm VERY pleased. I'll NEVER go back to AMD. EVER.

 

[mad pistol]

This is my first Intel (i7), and I'm VERY pleased. I'll NEVER go back to AMD. EVER.

Unless AMD comes out with a better product.

 

[GBear]

Again, comparing a quad-core to a hex-core of the same 45nm manufacturing process (Not AMD's 45nm with no upgraded L3 cache to Intel's 32nm with 50% upgraded L3 cache); not taking overclocking in to consideration; or specific machine component conditions either (Board specs, cooling specs, hard drive/SSD use, RAM clock speeds and quality, etc.).



And then comes back up the topic that still almost no programs on earth fully utilize quad-core processors yet (let alone are even programmed to see all cores).

Moving on to hex-core processors on an outdated 45nm manufacturing process was a bad move for AMD, especially considering that when Intel added two cores to the Nehalem (AND used the 32nm manufacturing process) it also increased the L3 cache of the i7-980X chip by 50%. The Phenom II X6 doesn't have an increased cache with the two extra cores. The 6 cores have to share the same 6MB L3 cache as the quad-core version.

For the cost, it's awesome - down the road it's a stupid decision because of it's bottlenecking specs...

Just to let you know, 45nm and 32nm does not really designate the manufacturing process. It is the size of the channel width of the MOSFETs within the CPU. Smaller channel widths are harder to achieve because if you do not have a very high K insulator between the gate and the channel, you will get a lot of quantum tunneling through the channel. There is a VAST amount of materials research, or research in general that AMD needs to do in order to develop such a method. Also, with a lower channel width, the gate needs less voltage to induce a flow of electrons, thus to can pack more transistors in the same size and use less power per transistor.

 

[reflex99]

I think AMD using a 45nm process is more innovative than intel's 32nm.

AMD managed to pack 2 more cores into the SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT AND POWER consumption as its X4 parts. Now that is engineering.

 

[Cheez]

I'm surprised you guys even purchased the intel i7s. Don't you guys think its a bit over-kill? I figured unless your using your computer for work like sequencing DNA or encoding media files, the i5s are probably good enough.

I'm planning to build one next month using intel i5 750. Its a quad core, has the increased L3 cache and shares the same turbo technology as the i7s for $200. (Anyone know a cheaper offer?)

That said, it is fascinating to think that AMD is coming out with hexacores. I guess its only a matter of time before games start utilizing all the cores.

 

[metro]

And then comes back up the topic that still almost no programs on earth fully utilize quad-core processors yet (let alone are even programmed to see all cores).

Applications like video encoding and offline 3D rendering show the real strengths of the Phenom II X6.

Just because video games don't use 4 cores doesn't mean other programs don't.

Moving on to hex-core processors on an outdated 45nm manufacturing process was a bad move for AMD, especially considering that when Intel added two cores to the Nehalem (AND used the 32nm manufacturing process) it also increased the L3 cache of the i7-980X chip by 50%. The Phenom II X6 doesn't have an increased cache with the two extra cores. The 6 cores have to share the same 6MB L3 cache as the quad-core version.

Also, I don't think it's fair to call the 45nm architecture outdated... AMD just released a BRAND NEW chip using that technology, it called the Phenom II x6 1090T. AMD has also made this CPU backwards compatible all the way back to AM2+. Intel currently is releasing chips for 3 (or 4 depending on how you count) different, incompatible sockets. You can upgrade from an Athlon dual core to a Phenom II hex core without changing your motherboard.

I could buy 4 1090Ts for the price of 1 i7 980. Thats 4 times the cores!

socket 939 would beg to differ

<-- amd fan boi

:glare: About that...

 

[GBear]

I think AMD using a 45nm process is more innovative than intel's 32nm.

AMD managed to pack 2 more cores into the SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT AND POWER consumption as its X4 parts. Now that is engineering.

Lol, that does not mean much at all. The tech within the chip hasn't progressed much at all. Same transistors. Same Cache. AMD cannot match Intel unless they completely develop a new process with different materials to drop the size of those MOSFETs.

 

[Adam]

I can live with my Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 for a while longer.

 

[GBear]

I can live with my Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 for a while longer.

Haha, yeah, I've got one of those. I've been spending way too much money else way to care to upgrade my computer.

 

[NixJedi]

This is definitely turning into a Rage thread.

AMD has perks, Intel has perks.

We all have our own opinions.

</thread> ???

 

[Ph?bus]

I think for AMD to really have a good product that pushes the envelope, they need a new socket, new architecture, NO BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY (sorry AM2+ guys), and smaller manufacturing tech (32nm).
Now all of that seems pretty obvious, but that's not what AMD has done for too long. A new socket would work wonders for AMD, and it would FINALLY be able to compete with Intel's (soon to be outdated (BUT STILL GOOD) by LGA 2011) LGA 1366 i7's
/$0.02