AMD equivalent of Intel

[RedFoxComp]

You and others are mixing messages here and then asking for debate on them.

This is not about Intels top chip or overclocking. I still believe that AMD does produce chips that are equal to or possibly better than Intel. Intel is always going to be ahead of the race, but when we go to the available chips there are comparable chips. I use a price/performance measure because if all other things are equal you would want to find something to make the decision on.

So please show me numbers and explain the tests you said you've done where you're finding better performance/dollar with AMD chips?

 

[NYJimbo]

So please show me numbers and explain the tests you said you've done where you're finding better performance/dollar with AMD chips?

Didnt we just see cover all of that in the past few posts ?

This thread isn't about being a fanboy one way or the other, its about addressing the OP's original question.

 

[RedFoxComp]

Didnt we just see cover all of that in the past few posts ?

I must have missed it. Can you copy/paste where you explain the specific circumstances you claim to have tested where you're getting better performance dollar per dollar?

The only real information I see that you posted is CPU utilization from some server you have, that comically enough is over 90% idle and would have more than enough power with any quad core or possibly even a dual.

 

[NYJimbo]

I must have missed it. Can you copy/paste where you explain the specific circumstances you claim to have tested where you're getting better performance dollar per dollar?

See, this is the problem, its all there but you pretend it is not. You ask for proof of "better performance dollar per dollar". If you go to the charts on the links in previous posts you see that for simple benchmarks we see "better performance dollar per dollar" is on the AMD side. But that's not good enough because then we get into all the business about overclocking, threading, cores and temps, it turns into a mess.

After that I said that if all things ARE EQUAL you can see that AMD "dollar per dollar" is better. Actually I didnt take it that far, but what the heck, thats what you want. There are comparable cpus AMD to Intel but then someone tosses in the "Intel has a faster" high end chip and the discussion falls apart again. This thread cant stay focused.

So then someone will say Intel is better for playing video games because you dont really need 8 cores, but then I show real world proof that normal business systems use 8 cores all the time. So then the arguement of intel faster FPS on gamin becomes meaningless, but nobody cares about that, do they ?

In the end we get nowhere because some people in this thread don't want to focused on the real question and instead want to throw in variables to confuse the issue or create a distraction.

This thread has devolved and is now just a hijack of the OP's question.

I am done.

 

[brock029]

To the OP I would say the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition would be comparable to the Intel Core i5-2500K, or most of the quad-core AM3+ socket cpus would also be comparable to the I5's.

The I3 though I would say any of the AM3 Socket Athlon II or Phenom II series would be comparable.

To everyone else, Just like Jimbo in my main desktop I have an Athlon II X3 Rana core 455 and it runs great. I do loads of gaming and I have yet to have something I can't run with good frame rates with the video settings all the way up. And I only paid like $80 at the time I bought it. For everything it has done so far I would say that's great performance for your $$$.

 

[RedFoxComp]

See, this is the problem, its all there but you pretend it is not. You ask for proof of "better performance dollar per dollar". If you go to the charts on the links in previous posts you see that for simple benchmarks we see "better performance dollar per dollar" is on the AMD side. But that's not good enough because then we get into all the business about overclocking, threading, cores and temps, it turns into a mess.

Forget anything but performance and performance per dollar. Which common situations are you finding AMD processors better value dollar/dollar vs intel? You said you've done testing on this but this is the 3rd time I've asked without a reply.

After that I said that if all things ARE EQUAL you can see that AMD "dollar per dollar" is better.

Where, when how!! You keep saying things without sharing any acutal information.

Actually I didnt take it that far, but what the heck, thats what you want. There are comparable cpus AMD to Intel but then someone tosses in the "Intel has a faster" high end chip and the discussion falls apart again. This thread cant stay focused.

You're the one that first posted disputing that AMD couldn't keep up with Intel (which they can't). I just replied to what you posted!

So then someone will say Intel is better for playing video games because you dont really need 8 cores, but then I show real world proof that normal business systems use 8 cores all the time. So then the arguement of intel faster FPS on gamin becomes meaningless, but nobody cares about that, do they ?

A server running FreeBSD (which is a normal business system?) at 9% load is proof of what exactly? If you're trying to prove that the cores are active in this situation you succeeded, beyond that I'm at a complete loss as to what this proved in the context of this discussion

In the end we get nowhere because some people in this thread don't want to focused on the real question and instead want to throw in variables to confuse the issue or create a distraction.

You're the only one convoluting the issue. Most of my lasts posts are me just repeatedly asking you to provide information and an explanation on research and testing you claim to have done.

Tech discussions are frustrating and pointless when people make baseless claims without being willing to provide data and explanations to have a real debate about it.

 

[compnet]

To the OP I would say the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition would be comparable to the Intel Core i5-2500K,

20 fps and 10 second load time differences? comparable??

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=102


For servers if you're not using a xeon I don't know what to tell you...


Like I said there may be some specialized situations where an 8 core AMD will outperform an intel, but AMD fell off a long time ago.

 

[gikstar]

One question posed to the original poster was basically asking what were you expecting to do with the processor/what was it for.

Personally, I don't purchase any AMD processors anymore (last one was in 2007 - an Amd 64x2 4400 as my personal computer). We have mostly business clients and prefer Intel motherboards and processors that utilize VPRO which enables us to handle our managed clients more efficiently.

 

[RedFoxComp]

20 fps and 10 second load time differences? comparable??

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=102

Like I said there may be some specialized situations where an 8 core AMD will outperform an intel, but AMD fell off a long time ago.

Yeah, a phenom 965 is nowhere close to an I5 2500K is anything, gaming, video editing, rendering, compiling... anything.

I find is strange to see technicians making performance judgements on what their gut tells them rather than benchmarks.

 

[brock029]

20 fps and 10 second load time differences? comparable??

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=102

Seems pretty comparable when it looks like about 50/50 which one is better across all of the benchmarks.

 

[RedFoxComp]

Seems pretty comparable when it looks like about 50/50 which one is better across all of the benchmarks.

Look at all the benchmarks where the AMD bar is higher than the intel bar.

Now look to the left where it says 'lower is better'.

 

[brock029]

Look at all the benchmarks where the AMD bar is higher than the intel bar.

Now look to the left where it says 'lower is better'.

LOL didnt see that

Either way I would still say its comparable (I never said it was better then), and technically AMD's equivalent would be the 975, same release date as the 2500k and slightly better performance then the 965...or even the slightly better 980.

 

[CLC]

I have not kept up to date with AMD processors so I was hoping someone could say what the equivalent fir an I3 and I5 are.

Thanks

I read this whole thread and I do see some fanboys in here All the guy wanted to know is what's comparable. Yes you can compare them, yes amd is more bang for the buck. I don't see how you can say they are not, they are cheaper. It's that simple, you are comparing top shelf liquor to non top shelf, you usually get what you pay for. It's not what is better, its what is comparable.

 

[RedFoxComp]

I read this whole thread and I do see some fanboys in here All the guy wanted to know is what's comparable. Yes you can compare them, yes amd is more bang for the buck. I don't see how you can say they are not, they are cheaper. It's that simple, you are comparing top shelf liquor to non top shelf. You usually get what you pay for.

Intel has the cheapest desktop CPUs out there with their G series, so I'm not sure what you're saying. How does less expensive equate to 'bang for the buck'.

I'm no fanboy. Here is the rig I'm currently typing on.

Numbers don't lie. If you have an opinion on this start posting data.