AMD vs Intel pre-sales debate

[LFFPicard]

While looking at potential tweaks to my system spec i posted last week i have noticed alot of people opt for the AMD PHENOM II X6 1090T (3.20GHz/9MB CACHE/AM3/) - BLACK EDITION rather than a intel i7-950 .

Is there any advantages to this, obviously AMD will most likely be cheaper, but does it give a better bang for buck or is the i7 still the best you can get?

I know this may start a small flame war but i just want to see whats best for gaming and bang for buck.

Thanks.

 

[Gishank]

Intel's 6 core processor is superior, yet it is 4/5x the price of AMD's 2 processors which are still very powerful.

 

[Gorman]

Bang for buck = AMD. Best performance = Intel. So it always was and so it always shall be.

 

[Phoenix]

Well the Phenom II x6 1090T has 6 cores whereas the I7-950 only has 4 cores so the AMD processor is better for multi-threaded applications and will be more future proof as software evolves to make better use of the cores available.

 

[Gorman]

Well the Phenom II x6 1090T has 6 cores whereas the I7-950 only has 4 cores so the AMD processor is better for multi-threaded applications and will be more future proof as software evolves to make better use of the cores available.

I7 Series have hyper threading which allows 8 threads on 4 cores.

 

[Sleinous]

yep as well as the fact that hardly anything uses 6 cores anyway, whereas 4 proper cores, more likely. Still, pretty rare

 

[Tom DWC]

I like to support AMD because of their superb price to performance ratio.

You also need competition, it's healthy - AMD and Intel provide that.

The very idea of Intel being the sole major CPU manufacturer frightens me. I watched an interview with their CEO on BBC Click some time ago now and I've taken a dislike to them ever since. It was just the wrong attitude to take and wasn't in the best interests of the industry.

That said, I'd have to agree that they're still ahead of AMD by a considerable margin in terms of raw performance at the moment. For now, the best they have to offer is still based on K10, an upgrade to K8 that can be traced back to the beginning of the previous decade. They're also having to throw in more cores to remain competitive - their hexa cores are able to compete with Intel's quad cores, but Intel's hyperthreaded hexa core monster blows everything out of the water with a dozen threads. I still prefer real cores to artificial ones though.

Let's be honest, both companies flagship processors are fantastic and you'll only notice a real difference when you push them to the absolute edge. This is where Intel comes into its own, but for a price premium.

This post is a bit long winded I know (sorry) but there aren't many AMD fanboys that would admit any of this, believe me.

 

[Gorman]

Each have their market and uses.

I used AMD for years and years, and then i wanted something faster. Nothing wrong with that!

Also remember the first Phenoms? 4 core fault and quickly botched into 3 core models, tut tut.

 

[Tom DWC]

Also remember the first Phenoms? 4 core fault and quickly botched into 3 core models, tut tut.

Ohhh so THAT's why they released triple cores. I always wondered why... you learn something new everyday!

 

[Sleinous]

Ohhh so THAT's why they released triple cores. I always wondered why...you learn something new everyday.

Wow same, just learnt that too, worked on someones PC that had an AMD with three cores, couldnt figure out why