AMD vs Intel - The Gaming Sweetspot

Conclusion

Conclusion
 
As the day draws to a close, the never ending battle of the processing titans take a short break for us to have a little chat. It seems to be quite clear that as an architecture, Intel have really hit the nail on the head as despite a near 700MHz frequency deficit, it matches and occasionally outpaces it's AMD based competition. By the looks of it, Intel are on the right tracks thanks to their aggressive "tick-tock" product update strategy whereby in a two to three year period we see a new architecture and a midlife update. The next update will entail a die shrink to 32nm and the addition of hex-core CPU's for the LGA1366 platform, surely enough to keep AMD on their toes.
 
For our smaller underdog however, our final result seems to be that their flagship Phenom II X4 965 processor can just about keep up with Intel's high end line up. With only minor frequency increments, the release of hex-core CPU's at least half a year away and no new architecture any time soon, the prognosis doesn't sound too good. But is AMD's weakened presence in the ultra high end such a bad thing? Actually if you think about it, the wide majority of processors in the world that go into prebuilt machines have retail prices of under £150. So long as AMD are making money out of their processors, then surely it's not such a bad thing from a business point of view. It does remain to be a problem for the computing enthusiasts as if you want anything faster than a Phenom II X4 965, you have no choice but to buy a Core i7 940 and higher. It's not so great for the overclockers either as from our previous testing, ramping a current production Phenom II towards the region of 4.00GHz can be very tedious and often not possible. Realistically, one can expect around 3.6-3.90GHz with a Phenom II X4 and this is not likely to change drastically until we see a dieshrink or a reworked memory controller that isn't so problematic with upper end overclocks on a 64bit operating system. An Intel Core i7 machine however is not so likely to be as fussy when overclocking towards 4.00GHz and beyond, so long as you've treated it with a substantial CPU heatsink.
 
Out of the box performance seems to be a different kettle of fish. For a moment, just forget about processor overclocking as we're talking about performance without any further tweaking on a blank operating system install. From our testing, we find the AMD Phenom II X4 965 to perform within 10% of the Core i7 965 (often less) and at a lower price. For emphasis, please examine the graph below, outlining
 
 
Our particular choice of components includes the Core i7 920, Gigabyte EX58 UD3R and 6GB Corsair PC3-12800 DDR3 RAM. From AMD, we picked the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, Gigabyte 790XTD Evo Motherboard (for CrossfireX support) and either 4GB or 8GB Corsair PC3-12800 DDR3 RAM. Upon examining these figures, it became apparent that the Intel configuration was 43.6% more expensive than the 4GB configuration and 16.5% quicker than the 8GB configuration. So let's talk value for money. Is opting for a Intel Core i7 920 based system  the way to go? Yes and no. Alright, so is opting for the AMD Phenom II X4 965 based system the way to go? Erm, yes and no...
 
Quite annoyingly, there is no straight forward answer to this as ultimately it comes down to personal needs. If you're an overclocker, then perhaps you might appreciate what the additional outlay gives you, more so if you do a lot of media/encoding based work as this is where Core i7 shines. You're also set if you're after a hexa core processor next year. What if you don't have any interest in overclocking though? AMD Phenom II it is then, thanks to it's excellent pricing, gaming performance that is very much on Core i7 levels and also the scope to upgrade to hexa core CPU's when they eventually turn up. 
 
Returning to our initial analogy, referring the violent clashes of two opposites featuring Cyborgs that want to anihilate all humans and the Resistance who are fighting back to prevent their demise. Based on our conclusion, it would appear as though we reached a slight anticlimax where just when both sides were face to face ready to fire at will, they stopped, agreed that they both have their own merits, called a truce and walked into the sunset hand in hand. At any rate, I do apologise for the tame outcome but this is it I guess. Thankfully in a business context, there will never be a ceasefire between these two titans and so the consumer can always count on continuous product development and competitive pricing.
 
AMD has surely enough got it right from a value for money point of view but would it suit you? Feel free to dicuss which platform suits you best on our forums
«Prev 1 2 3 4 Next»

Most Recent Comments

25-10-2009, 23:33:24

tinytomlogan
We get the put the two heavey weighs in the ring head to head, will AMD throw in the towel? Or maybe Intel is all mouth.... We fire up the test rigs to find out who really is the best. By Mul

Continue Reading

26-10-2009, 03:37:55

AaronCooper
Hehe tom you put AMD Vs. nVidia not intel :P

26-10-2009, 06:48:36

Kylevdm
Great article, although I would switch the Call of Duty test results the other way round so it matches with all the others At the moment it is i7 on top where all the others have it on the bottom of the graph

26-10-2009, 08:17:54

Rastalovich
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='AaronCooper'
Hehe tom you put AMD Vs. nVidia not intel :P
Freudient slip.

It's evident to me that if ur just gaming, u can afford to make a choice of either camp. Even if ur enthusiastic in ur approach. Cash will often dictate ur choice, although primarily I try to stress to people (in this day'n'age) ur major purchase should always be the gfxcard for gaming. It makes little sense to dump a large portion of ur budget into cpu/mobo/mem and settle for a 4770, when u could get a 5870 and the balance can effectively make up the numbers.

Some1 with an i7 and a 4770 will do less well as a P35/E8400 and a 5870, for example.

Think the biggest decision maker is what else u do with the pc other than gaming.

Great read btw.

26-10-2009, 16:51:36

iceie
I think this test proves that the intel chips is really aggressive for the performance and the disadvantages that is set to test

27-10-2009, 07:56:17

Nelly
Sorry to criticise the review but it lacks depth in terms of results as their isn't enough infomation to give conclusive evidence i.e. not enough Benchmarks as some games fair better on one CPU or the other - check other reviews.

Would of been a more interesting read if you did a clock for clock analysis just to see if the INTEL i7 920 @ 3.4GHz gave a significant boost or not over the stock 2.66GHz.

Then do another test with both CPU's at 3.8GHz to see if either CPU can take advantage of the 5870 graphics card.

Also would of been more interesting if you had added results using Lynnfield into the equation.

On a positive note for Fred Bloggs buying a PC from a retail chain PC outlet the results will be good for the non-overclocker who isn't bothered about these things.

27-10-2009, 10:14:26

danimoth17
I would have preferred a comparison using the core i7-860 or 870.

that way you would have been using the same dual channel memory etc.

just to rule out other influences as much as possible.

27-10-2009, 13:31:29

Mul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Nelly'
Sorry to criticise the review but it lacks depth in terms of results as their isn't enough infomation to give conclusive evidence i.e. not enough Benchmarks as some games fair better on one CPU or the other - check other reviews.

Would of been a more interesting read if you did a clock for clock analysis just to see if the INTEL i7 920 @ 3.4GHz gave a significant boost or not over the stock 2.66GHz.

Then do another test with both CPU's at 3.8GHz to see if either CPU can take advantage of the 5870 graphics card.

Also would of been more interesting if you had added results using Lynnfield into the equation.

On a positive note for Fred Bloggs buying a PC from a retail chain PC outlet the results will be good for the non-overclocker who isn't bothered about these things.
Cheers for the feedback

Truth be told, with the equipment that I had to hand, between the previously reviewed Titan Goliath PC and it's HD 5870, I thought it might be possible to pull together another article with some results. If I had more gaming benchmarks to hand as well as a Core i5, then certainly they would have been included but even without doing so, our conclusion still holds true.

05-11-2009, 20:48:03

WelshD1K
amd has a slight advantage fo a faster clock speed. would be interesting to see how it waould fair vs a 920 @ 3.4 ..

i will argue that speed - speed amd seem to be down on the fps etc might be the lower fsb and high multi throttling the cards? , just a thought as my old e6600 did better fps than my amd 6000x2

with identical everything - mobo ...

05-11-2009, 23:48:13

FragTek
Nice shoot out! Makes me not feel so bad about going back to AMD, haha.
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.