What I don't understand why Intel and AMD don't do, is to say, we'll sell you this processor with a cheap junk cooler (e.g., what Intel ships with Sandy Bridge or Lynnfield processors, or AMD ships with Athlon II processors), or for $10 more, exactly the same processor with a better stock cooler (e.g., what Intel ships with Gulftown, or AMD ships with Phenom II Black Edition processors). If there is room in the world for 40 different SKUs of Radeon HD 6950, then why not 2 SKUs of Core i5 2500K? The latter doesn't need to be a high end cooler, but just something respectable, comparable to what you can get in a $20 aftermarket cooler.
Intel is better, they create the technology that AMD just implements. You pay a lot for the Intel logo though Apart from the new generation of AMDs, because I like the idea of the Cpu inside the Cpu. The thing is, AMD ended the megahertz war by producing a lower clocked processor which was faster than a higher clocked Intro processor. This made both companies focus more on speed, and also made Intel look stupid.
Actually no, the i5 is a much better choice and bang-for-your-buck than the i7. Very few things can even take advantage of the 8 cores of the i7. (4 real, 4 virtual) Your much better off with the i5 unless your doing something that somehow demands 8 cores. And no, gaming isn't one fo them, 99% of the games out will get little to zero boost from the i7 over the i5. The next generation of games a year from now however may. But by then better cpus will be out which will make the i7 obsolete anyway.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
The i3-2100 can beat the PII X4 940 in most of the benchmarks (including all games).
- SysMark 2007 is a synthetic benchmark in which the i3 loose. However, how many people really take synthetic benchmarks seriously anyway when real benchmarks are available?
- The PII X4 940 can beat the i3 in x264 video encoding. This makes the PII a better CPU if you are really interested in encoding video rather than playing games.
- The i3 marginally looses to the PII in 3DSMax SPECapc and some other 3DSMax benchmarks. The difference is less than 2% and is small enough to be considered as a margin of error when recording benchmarks.
Regardless, it does show that the PII 940 is marginally faster. However, for someone who does not work with 3DSMax this is a non issue.
- The i3 also looses to the PII in Cinebench and POV Ray when it comes to rending 3D content / models. However, it is also a non issue for people who do not work with 3D modeling.
Outside of games, the benchmarks shows that the Phenom II X4 940 (and most likely the 840) can beat the Core i3 in certain tasks. However, the question is if those tasks are relevant to the person who will be deciding between the PII X4 840 and the Core i3-2120.
dont throw your phenom mobo in the trash yet!with the low number just showed(pcper.com)and the huge number given by amd 980 and the amd 1100 i wouldnt be surprised if amd was to opt for a shrink to 32 nm for those two core and make them avail for am3 user.
i bet they were hoping for test optimised for the 8150 or the 4170 but the sad truth is the diff between a 980 ,1100 vs 8150,4170 is so slim user wont upgrade mobo and proc ,mem etc etc just to gain 5% in the best scenario and loose single thread half of what 1100 do
so if i was amd i would be hard at work shrinking die size of the 1100 so they can sell some for holiday season.cause they wont sell a lot of the buldozer brand.they are too advanced for their time lol .unless amd come up with a benchmark tool?
i got to sorrily say they are right ,the best bang for your buck is a i5 2500 215 $ and it smoke anything amd can throw at it!i am a huge amd fan but this time around amd blew it!if user need to go buy a mobo proc etc the i5 2500 is best buy
if you just want to replace your proc and you got am3 then 980 or 1100 from amd are best bet.but they will be slower then the i5 2500 by a huge margin and cost the same price!(but those amd proc still give a hard time to the 8150 buldozer.i dont get why amd just didnt shrink 1100 to 32 nm!
The speed at which software makes use of new CPU capabilities is much faster than you think. The keyword here is 'Virtual Machines'. Not as in machine virtualization (VirtualBox/VMWare/ESX), but as in Virtual Run-Time environments (Dot.Net, Java, PHP, Adobe Air).
The same can and will be said of the mainstream OS's out there trying to out-do one another (OSX, Windows, Linux).
Dont imagine that hordes of developers will be re-compiling their code, instead imagine that 4 or so development shops with substantial resources each and with a large vested interest in outdoing the other 3 each go out of their way to ensure that they take advantage of all the features they can.
Hence, no end-user applications need be rewritten. The new CPU features will not languish for long at all.
Comments
What I don't understand why Intel and AMD don't do, is to say, we'll sell you this processor with a cheap junk cooler (e.g., what Intel ships with Sandy Bridge or Lynnfield processors, or AMD ships with Athlon II processors), or for $10 more, exactly the same processor with a better stock cooler (e.g., what Intel ships with Gulftown, or AMD ships with Phenom II Black Edition processors). If there is room in the world for 40 different SKUs of Radeon HD 6950, then why not 2 SKUs of Core i5 2500K? The latter doesn't need to be a high end cooler, but just something respectable, comparable to what you can get in a $20 aftermarket cooler.
Intel is better, they create the technology that AMD just implements. You pay a lot for the Intel logo though Apart from the new generation of AMDs, because I like the idea of the Cpu inside the Cpu. The thing is, AMD ended the megahertz war by producing a lower clocked processor which was faster than a higher clocked Intro processor. This made both companies focus more on speed, and also made Intel look stupid.
Actually no, the i5 is a much better choice and bang-for-your-buck than the i7. Very few things can even take advantage of the 8 cores of the i7. (4 real, 4 virtual) Your much better off with the i5 unless your doing something that somehow demands 8 cores. And no, gaming isn't one fo them, 99% of the games out will get little to zero boost from the i7 over the i5. The next generation of games a year from now however may. But by then better cpus will be out which will make the i7 obsolete anyway.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
The i3-2100 can beat the PII X4 940 in most of the benchmarks (including all games).
- SysMark 2007 is a synthetic benchmark in which the i3 loose. However, how many people really take synthetic benchmarks seriously anyway when real benchmarks are available?
- The PII X4 940 can beat the i3 in x264 video encoding. This makes the PII a better CPU if you are really interested in encoding video rather than playing games.
- The i3 marginally looses to the PII in 3DSMax SPECapc and some other 3DSMax benchmarks. The difference is less than 2% and is small enough to be considered as a margin of error when recording benchmarks.
Regardless, it does show that the PII 940 is marginally faster. However, for someone who does not work with 3DSMax this is a non issue.
- The i3 also looses to the PII in Cinebench and POV Ray when it comes to rending 3D content / models. However, it is also a non issue for people who do not work with 3D modeling.
Outside of games, the benchmarks shows that the Phenom II X4 940 (and most likely the 840) can beat the Core i3 in certain tasks. However, the question is if those tasks are relevant to the person who will be deciding between the PII X4 840 and the Core i3-2120.
dont throw your phenom mobo in the trash yet!with the low number just showed(pcper.com)and the huge number given by amd 980 and the amd 1100 i wouldnt be surprised if amd was to opt for a shrink to 32 nm for those two core and make them avail for am3 user.
i bet they were hoping for test optimised for the 8150 or the 4170 but the sad truth is the diff between a 980 ,1100 vs 8150,4170 is so slim user wont upgrade mobo and proc ,mem etc etc just to gain 5% in the best scenario and loose single thread half of what 1100 do
so if i was amd i would be hard at work shrinking die size of the 1100 so they can sell some for holiday season.cause they wont sell a lot of the buldozer brand.they are too advanced for their time lol .unless amd come up with a benchmark tool?
mm maybe?
i got to sorrily say they are right ,the best bang for your buck is a i5 2500 215 $ and it smoke anything amd can throw at it!i am a huge amd fan but this time around amd blew it!if user need to go buy a mobo proc etc the i5 2500 is best buy
if you just want to replace your proc and you got am3 then 980 or 1100 from amd are best bet.but they will be slower then the i5 2500 by a huge margin and cost the same price!(but those amd proc still give a hard time to the 8150 buldozer.i dont get why amd just didnt shrink 1100 to 32 nm!
The speed at which software makes use of new CPU capabilities is much faster than you think. The keyword here is 'Virtual Machines'. Not as in machine virtualization (VirtualBox/VMWare/ESX), but as in Virtual Run-Time environments (Dot.Net, Java, PHP, Adobe Air).
The same can and will be said of the mainstream OS's out there trying to out-do one another (OSX, Windows, Linux).
Dont imagine that hordes of developers will be re-compiling their code, instead imagine that 4 or so development shops with substantial resources each and with a large vested interest in outdoing the other 3 each go out of their way to ensure that they take advantage of all the features they can.
Hence, no end-user applications need be rewritten. The new CPU features will not languish for long at all.