PDA

View Full Version : Observation...


Redeemed
04-17-11, 01:49 PM
Out of curiosity I started comparing prices between a top end SB platform and a top-end PhII x6 platform, just to see how comparable the two really are in prices.

For the AMD platform you can get the PhenomII X6 1100T BE (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103913) for only $229 w/free shipping.

The ASUS CrossHair IV Extreme (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131667) comes in at a lofty $309.99 w/ free shipping as well.

This brings the grand total for the platform up to about $540.00 pre-tax. Considering this is far from low-end performance and will be well capable of pushing any game out currently, as well as any game to be released in the near future with relative ease this actually looks like a very good deal- especially when you consider the oc'ing potential of the PhII procs. Assuming OC let's add $50 for a top-end air cooler. That now brings the total to about $590 pre-tax/shipping. Still very reasonable considering the performance you'd get from this platform with that CPU at stock, or even at 4+Ghz.

For the Intel platform you can get the 2600K (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070) for only $314.99. That's nearly $100 more than AMD's top PhII chip, but considering the performance of this CPU I'd say that price is warranted, especially considering the amazing oc'ing potential.

The ASUS Maximus IV Extreme (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131700) comes in at a lofty $364.99. I could have gone with MSI's Big Bang-Marshall (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130595) @ $400 but that doesn't seem like it'd be a very common mobo so I went with ASUS' as that seemed the more practical and likely board.

The total for the Intel platform comes to about $680.00 pre-tax and shipping. Add $50 for a top-end air cooler and you get an approx pre-shipping and tax total of $730.

That's a difference of about $140.

For $140 you can choose from several 60 - 64Gb SSDs. Of course I'm not including the price of a video card, power supply, etc. For this comparison it'd only be the mobo+CPU that'd be upgraded thus reusing the rest of the components.

But I'd think that as an end-user I'd more appreciate going with the top-end AMD platform + the SSD for the OS as that'd likely yeild the greater over-all experience, be it in-game or at the desktop. Now, considering my current rig I'm not in the market to upgrade, but I was curious about the hype surrounding SB. It seems to me, that unless $140 doesn't hold a ton of value to you and is easily replaceable the AMD route would still be the more logical.

Unless, of course, you already own an SSD (such as my self), then I'd likely not be so reluctant to spend the extra money on the CPU+Mobo from Intel.

But for an individual that doesn't already posses an SSD it just seems like the AMD platform would be the better over-all solution; it'd offer exceptional performance in games and at the desktop. Actually, and entirely because of the SSD, it'd likely offer a superior overall experience to the Intel platform due to the greater responsiveness of the system as a whole- be at browsing the web, listening to music, watching a movie, or playing a game, thanks entirely to the use of the SSD.

Am I wrong? Curious on what your guys' take on this is. :)

grey_1
04-17-11, 06:32 PM
2600k can be had for $279 at microcenter and there are plenty of feature packed 1155 boards out there for under $200

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131704

Wondering why you chose high end only. So $479 for the intel vs your choice of $540 for the AMD, which of course can easily be lowered as well, but imo that $479 packs more punch than the AMD platform

Roadhog
04-17-11, 06:52 PM
Yeah, you're way, way wrong. You're comparing two different motherboards, why not find one the same price in both camps?

Viral
04-17-11, 07:07 PM
Just another observation: It's pretty unclear as to whether ASUS boards will be AM3+ compatible despite what they say. If going AMD now, I'd have to go for one of the AM3+ boards from Gigabyte. Any board with a black socket is AM3+.

Q
04-17-11, 08:42 PM
There are plenty of great motherboards for the 2600K for around $180. You're looking at $500 for an incredible gaming system. The Asus P8P67 PRO is about $180 and has three PCI-E 16x slots and is a top tier performer. $500 gets you, at stock, the fastest (or 2nd fastest) gaming machine on the planet. Considering the 2600K overclocks like nobody's business, I don't think you can really go wrong.

AMD just can't compete at the top end - especially not with gaming. Look at the Anandtech reviews. You see the top tier AMD stuff struggling to keep up with a Q6600.

There are price points where AMD is very competitive, but not at the high end.

Redeemed
04-18-11, 01:46 PM
Hmm... good points about the motherboards. Probably should have gone for some in the $150 - $200 range. That still leaves the SB platform about $100 more than the AMD platform simply from the SB CPU being more expensive. That $100 could get you a 40GB SSD which is plenty for just the OS.

Admittedly this is mostly based off of my own experience, but I still can't say there's a tangible, night and day difference between my first quad core rig (Ph9600 BE) and my current one. I think the OS loads a bit faster under this i7 rig, apps open slightly faster, and there's probably ever so slightly less of a delay in response with many apps open at once.

But honestly, and I did use both rigs side by side (before I had my SSDs) I cannot see much of a difference in performance at the desktop. In games still not much. If I had FRAPs open yeah I know the FPS would be higher cause the CPU would be able to feed more data, quicker, to the GPU but even still while playing it wasn't noticeable. Granted, this was roughly a year ago when I did the comparison but I'd wager it's not much different now.

It just seems to me that the AMD platform with an SSD would yield the better overall experience. You are right about the socket though, Viral- would want to make sure I got one that was compatible with AM3+. Newegg did list an AM3+ mobo, but only one so that's why I didn't choose it in my comparison.

I mean, do you guys really feel that a PhII x6 1100T is insufficient for... any practical task? It's $100 less than the SB part. Do you guys really think that the PhII x6 1100T + an SSD for OS would offer a worse overall experience to the SB part without an SSD? I find this ridiculous as I threw together a rig for a friend using an old C2D... forget the exact model. But for kicks I put my 30GB SSD in there and it seemed every bit as fast (at the desktop, browsing the web, listeing to music, basic multi-tasking) as this i7 rig of mine. You think a PhII x6 1100T would fare worse?

I guess if you just build the rig to push the maximal FPS my point is moot. In that case you'd likely have a bigger budget and then jump up to maybe a 990x, an SSD, and some extreme video card config. By default that'd push the most FPS while also being rediculously fast at nearly every other task you needed to perform.

But for the $500 range it just seems to me it'd be much more logical to get the PhII x6 1100T with an SSD as that'd yield the greatest over all experience, from multi-tasking at the desktop to gaming. And thanks to current gen consoles likely being around for another year or so at least that CPU will be more than up to any game released within the next two years likely. By that time BD will be out which would offer a cheap yet (presumably) drastic upgrade.

I'm not arguing it's the PhII x6 1100T alone that'd make for the better experience, I'm saying with the addition of the 40GB SSD it'd be a combination that for the price would be darn tough to beat. I mean, I don't know about you guys but if I were in the market for a new CPU and mobo right now, reusing everything else- I'd be more attracted to the AMD offering simply cause I'd also be able to get an SSD. 6 cores at or near 4GHz is far from restricting on near any front. Pair it with a current gen GPU (assuming you already own it, thus it's no extra cost) like a 5800, 6800, 6900, GTX400, or GTX500 series GPU and you'll have a rig that'll demolish any game out and any game due out within' the next two years.

Granted same could be said going SB but unless tacking on the extra $100 to SB for that SSD is no issue for you then you'd be stuck with whichever HDDs you already own. I'd rather save that $100- that's about a month's groceries or a month's gas for my car. :lol: And side by side I really doubt you'd see any difference between two identical rigs except one being a PhII x6 1100T and the other sporting a 2600K unless you had some performance measuring tool like FRAPs running.

I think it'd be neat to do such a comparison- sadly I don't have the money for it. But it would be fun and interesting to see two such rigs side by side. Just to see if, without any tool like FRAPs running, could you see a difference in performance for either machine? I'm sure there would be a measurable difference between the two in favor of SB but without FRAPs or such a tool to measure it I just don't think it'd be perceptible. :)

grey_1
04-18-11, 02:08 PM
zomg - TLDNR

:captnkill:

EDIT: No one said the AMD is insufficient. But for even better performance at an identical pricepoint AMD has lost it's advantage. Look at Anand's review on the 2500k.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/1

There is no advantage for the x6, either price or in most cases, performance.

Don't get me wrong, the x6 are a fine batch of chips, but realistically speaking, no benches or prices I've seen back an argument for going with the slower platform.

Roadhog
04-18-11, 03:27 PM
I still don't see how you are figuring the intel system is more. Even if you went for a 2500k it would be cheaper and faster than the 1100t.

grey_1
04-18-11, 03:37 PM
I still don't see how you are figuring the intel system is more. Even if you went for a 2500k it would be cheaper and faster than the 1100t.

This isn't directed at me is it? I'm agreeing with you. :lol:

Roadhog
04-18-11, 03:39 PM
Was directed at redeemed, but I didn't want to quote his novel on my phone.

grey_1
04-18-11, 03:41 PM
Was directed at redeemed, but I didn't want to quote his novel on my phone.

Yeah, that could have led to an outage. :lol:

Redeemed
04-19-11, 01:06 AM
zomg - TLDNR

:captnkill:

EDIT: No one said the AMD is insufficient. But for even better performance at an identical pricepoint AMD has lost it's advantage. Look at Anand's review on the 2500k.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/1

There is no advantage for the x6, either price or in most cases, performance.

Don't get me wrong, the x6 are a fine batch of chips, but realistically speaking, no benches or prices I've seen back an argument for going with the slower platform.

I still don't see how you are figuring the intel system is more. Even if you went for a 2500k it would be cheaper and faster than the 1100t.

Figured I'd respond to both of you since ya'll pretty much said the same thing. :p

Okay, I'll stand corrected. For some reason I thought there was a much larger performance delta between the 2500k and 2600k than there really is. Thanks for that review Grey. :) It seems the proper comparison isn't the 2600k to the PhII x6 1100T, but the 2500k to the PhII x6 1100T... in which case it's a clear win for the 2500k, and the 2500k is about $5 cheaper.

So my whole point is moot now and this thread concluded, I guess. :lol: :o Going with the 2500k + SSD would likely be cheaper than the AMD solution while yeilding better performance. It seems, going off of that review though, the greatest gains are when gaming. In media creation or general multi-tasking the 2500k doesn't hold that great of a lead over the six-core Phenom... averages about 6 seconds lead in most rendering apps. Kinda' surprised me as I figured that's where Intel would really take the crown.

The 1100T seems to be hard to place price-wise. It's definitely over priced as is... I'm not sure what would warrant the difference- huge gap performance wise in gaming. I'm thinking the $180 price range would be far more reasonable, but can they sell them that low and still not be selling below cost? This means all their other processors would have to drop in price as well, and that'd also hurt.

I'm at the conclusion now that AMD is likely as low as they can get, for now, in prices. Hopefully BD will offer the performance rumored while still being a bit cheaper- at least to produce. Therefore AMD could sell the chips at a slightly lower cost while bringing in greater revenue. Kinda' interesting to see how this round will turn out- especially knowing that nVidia is liscensing SLi to AMD and AMD will be having native SATA3 and USB3.0, hopefully this new AMD3+ platform will indeed be competitive. :)

grey_1
04-19-11, 07:19 AM
Kinda' interesting to see how this round will turn out- especially knowing that nVidia is liscensing SLi to AMD and AMD will be having native SATA3 and USB3.0, hopefully this new AMD3+ platform will indeed be competitive. :)

Yeah, +1 to this. We'll know exactly where each platform stands by the time I build my next rig - I'm really hoping it will be a tough choice, but somewhat of a win either way. :)

dairy hick
04-19-11, 08:39 AM
Figured I'd respond to both of you since ya'll pretty much said the same thing. :p

Okay, I'll stand corrected. For some reason I thought there was a much larger performance delta between the 2500k and 2600k than there really is. Thanks for that review Grey. :) It seems the proper comparison isn't the 2600k to the PhII x6 1100T, but the 2500k to the PhII x6 1100T... in which case it's a clear win for the 2500k, and the 2500k is about $5 cheaper.

So my whole point is moot now and this thread concluded, I guess. :lol: :o Going with the 2500k + SSD would likely be cheaper than the AMD solution while yeilding better performance. It seems, going off of that review though, the greatest gains are when gaming. In media creation or general multi-tasking the 2500k doesn't hold that great of a lead over the six-core Phenom... averages about 6 seconds lead in most rendering apps. Kinda' surprised me as I figured that's where Intel would really take the crown.

The 1100T seems to be hard to place price-wise. It's definitely over priced as is... I'm not sure what would warrant the difference- huge gap performance wise in gaming. I'm thinking the $180 price range would be far more reasonable, but can they sell them that low and still not be selling below cost? This means all their other processors would have to drop in price as well, and that'd also hurt.

I'm at the conclusion now that AMD is likely as low as they can get, for now, in prices. Hopefully BD will offer the performance rumored while still being a bit cheaper- at least to produce. Therefore AMD could sell the chips at a slightly lower cost while bringing in greater revenue. Kinda' interesting to see how this round will turn out- especially knowing that nVidia is liscensing SLi to AMD and AMD will be having native SATA3 and USB3.0, hopefully this new AMD3+ platform will indeed be competitive. :)
+1.

The 2500K is the best buy on the market right now.

For me to buy another AMD processor, it would have to be guaranteed a good OC'er, but the vcore range for the same AMD processors is wildly high, so I'm going to steer clear of AMD. My next upgrade will more than likely be to a intel 2500K and Asus Sabertooth P67 B3.

I don't know that Bulldozer is going to be a great performer, because the L3 cache is going to be clocked so slow and I'm sure it's going to run hotter than SB. It has a lot of L3 cache, but it's only clocked 20% faster than the PII's L3 cache.

Redeemed
04-19-11, 10:46 AM
Yeah, +1 to this. We'll know exactly where each platform stands by the time I build my next rig - I'm really hoping it will be a tough choice, but somewhat of a win either way. :)

Unless AMD completely blows Intel out of the water, at least in price : performance, I'm locked into Intel because of my discount through work. :o I'd honestly love to have another AMD platform... don't know why I just really prefer their platforms to be honest. For no solid reason either- I know Intel's are faster, usually more stable, etc... just fond of AMD is all. :o :) Likely because every AMD rig I've owned has far exceeded my performance expectations, and I've owned far more AMD rigs than Intel ones. Kinda' like I'm numb to the performance of any Intel setup I've owned simply because I came to expect that performance due to the premium I paid... thus wasn't surprised when it performed as anticipated. If that makes any sense. :o

Really hoping AMD pulls a winner out here. Would be great for them, and great for us consumers. AMD needs a season of pure winning across the board- CPU, chipset, and GPUs. They've been doing great with their GPUs for several years now. Hopefully they'll maintain that momentum. Their chipsets seem to get better and better, hopefully they'll have a star performer, and their CPUs are improving as well just not drastically enough.

+1.

The 2500K is the best buy on the market right now.

For me to buy another AMD processor, it would have to be guaranteed a good OC'er, but the vcore range for the same AMD processors is wildly high, so I'm going to steer clear of AMD. My next upgrade will more than likely be to a intel 2500K and Asus Sabertooth P67 B3.

I don't know that Bulldozer is going to be a great performer, because the L3 cache is going to be clocked so slow and I'm sure it's going to run hotter than SB. It has a lot of L3 cache, but it's only clocked 20% faster than the PII's L3 cache.

Are you certain that AMD's design with be cache-starved? What if 20% is all it's gonna' need? Of course we wont know untill the unit is out but I kinda' imagine that AMD would be aware of such a performance-crippler if it were that big a deal. AMD seems confident that the BD chip will match the performance of LGA1366 cpus, which essentially would put it on par with SB. And with later revisions they could always up the cache clocks if needed, as yeilds improve.

Assuming BD is on par with SB, this will be a nice architecture for AMD- as all of their previous ones lagged behind Intel's in terms of performance, so that left them continually playing catch-up and aggressively engaging in a price war.

If, out the gate, BD is clock-for-clock on par with SB then that'll give AMD some wiggle room as 1.) they wont have to be so aggressively engaged in a price war, and 2.)it'll allow them a platform on which they can grow- with each revision they can get greater and greater performance, building off of the success of the original BD, thus allowing them to remain competitive.

Worse case scenerio I see is that IB comes out and is ahead of BD, AMD releases a new revision which narrows the gap considerably making the performnce delta between BD and IB negligible yet they can still charge less for their chips, yet again bringing them into a pricewar.

Gonna' be interesting regardless. I've faith in AMD, there's some real talent in that company. I'm optimistic that they'll yet again pull another rabbit out of their hat. :)

Redeemed
04-19-11, 11:34 AM
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high when it comes to Bulldozer.

AMD seems to put them against the "highest end" SNB 2600K. But that's probably the overall performance including multi-threaded apps. A 8 "Core" CPU will perform much better in those test and can gain a lot compared to SNB.

Well, the 2600k is right up there with the 980x in most tests, if BD can offer that out the gate, what's to say future revisions wont allow for even greater performance?

All in all, I think when IB hits, even after a couple revisions AMD's processors will fall between the 2600k and IB in terms of "final" performance. Mostly because AMD doesn't have the R&D resources Intel does to implement drastic improvements each revision, thus as their processors age they aren't able to keep up each revision with the competition. As such, I'm thinking AMD will fall back to charging slightly less for their parts. :)

Redeemed
04-19-11, 12:04 PM
Well, that can't be AMD's goal because SB is this year's CPU and IB next year's. AMD needs to deliver a competing product every year. And not just after a few revisions.

And apparently they're using the FX brand again. If AMD's top end FX offering can only compete with a lower end Intel 2600K, then I consider Bulldozer a failure.
AMD should place the FX line against SNB-E.

Let's be honest- for a company of their size matching the 2600k clock-for-clock is pretty impressive. Considering how their current lineup stacks against the competition, making that big a jump is considerable. Also they'll have to price the processors competitively. So if the 2600k goes for $300, the what ever FX model goes against it will also go for around $300.

AMD might be modeling their CPU plan after their GPU success- target the mainstream, own it, and work up from there. If BD can provide 2600k performance while running cooler, costing less (to produce) then it's indeed a win for AMD. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to compete with SNB-E for one because it's not even out yet, and two it'll likely be a fair step ahead of SB in regards to performance. AMD just doesn't have the R&D resources I'd wager to keep up in the high-end, so they have to focus on where they can be the most aggressive... and that'll be the mainstream.

It worked with their GPUs, likely it'd work for their CPUs. After all, most the revenue isn't going to come from selling the fastest high-end product, it'll come from having the most solid mainstream and low end product. I think this is what they're targeting.

nekrosoft13
04-19-11, 12:11 PM
AMD will not be part of my main rig, until they really redo their chipset. I will buy cheap AMD stuff for my other PCs, but never (at least now) for my main rig.

And even saying that, I'm thinking of re-building my server on intel platform, because amd chipset simply can't handle the server tasks well.

grey_1
04-19-11, 12:28 PM
Let's be honest- for a company of their size matching the 2600k clock-for-clock is pretty impressive. Considering how their current lineup stacks against the competition, making that big a jump is considerable. Also they'll have to price the processors competitively. So if the 2600k goes for $300, the what ever FX model goes against it will also go for around $300.

AMD might be modeling their CPU plan after their GPU success- target the mainstream, own it, and work up from there. If BD can provide 2600k performance while running cooler, costing less (to produce) then it's indeed a win for AMD. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to compete with SNB-E for one because it's not even out yet, and two it'll likely be a fair step ahead of SB in regards to performance. AMD just doesn't have the R&D resources I'd wager to keep up in the high-end, so they have to focus on where they can be the most aggressive... and that'll be the mainstream.

It worked with their GPUs, likely it'd work for their CPUs. After all, most the revenue isn't going to come from selling the fastest high-end product, it'll come from having the most solid mainstream and low end product. I think this is what they're targeting.

AMD has to do more than match clockspeeds though. The proc can be the next best thing to sliced bread, but if the chip + chipset doesn't deliver comparable performance to intel for the same money across all functions then they'll maintain status quo at best, fall further behind at worst.

Their current model (targeting mainstream) has gotten them this far, but with increasing costs a company must win every now and then, that's just business.

AMD has good products, I'll never deny that, but mainstream buyers will go for bang for the buck over ~5% (guessing) performance gains every single time. That's why the laptop market is still loaded to the gills with pentium chips. But the chipset they're running on is the saving grace there. I wouldn't say this is do or die for AMD, far from it, but a loss at each pricepoint is just another mediocre product as far as the market is concerned.

dairy hick
04-20-11, 01:33 PM
Are you certain that AMD's design with be cache-starved? What if 20% is all it's gonna' need? Of course we wont know untill the unit is out but I kinda' imagine that AMD would be aware of such a performance-crippler if it were that big a deal. AMD seems confident that the BD chip will match the performance of LGA1366 cpus, which essentially would put it on par with SB. And with later revisions they could always up the cache clocks if needed, as yeilds improve.

Assuming BD is on par with SB, this will be a nice architecture for AMD- as all of their previous ones lagged behind Intel's in terms of performance, so that left them continually playing catch-up and aggressively engaging in a price war.

If, out the gate, BD is clock-for-clock on par with SB then that'll give AMD some wiggle room as 1.) they wont have to be so aggressively engaged in a price war, and 2.)it'll allow them a platform on which they can grow- with each revision they can get greater and greater performance, building off of the success of the original BD, thus allowing them to remain competitive.

Worse case scenerio I see is that IB comes out and is ahead of BD, AMD releases a new revision which narrows the gap considerably making the performnce delta between BD and IB negligible yet they can still charge less for their chips, yet again bringing them into a pricewar.

Gonna' be interesting regardless. I've faith in AMD, there's some real talent in that company. I'm optimistic that they'll yet again pull another rabbit out of their hat. :)
Excellent point about AMD knowing whether 2.4 GHz is a sufficient clock speed for the L3 cache. I hadn't considered that.

I'm kind of optimistic that the CPU will have good performance because of all of the resources they've put into it. At the same time, I'm pessimistic, because the 2500K only sells for about $220 and I don't really know how low AMD can afford to sell BD for.

AMD's chipsets are okay. They're neither as fast nor as feature-rich as those from intel, but they run at very low temps and low voltage, so that kind of makes up for it.