If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
i have no idea about the inner workings of any of these. i dont even know enough to bullshit. i just put together my first intel system ever.
all i know is that even if you take the top c2q even a mid level sandybridge chip will outperform it.
on a sidenote, the sandybridge line are freakin monsters. i got an i5-2500k, stock clock is 3.3ghz. i have it at 4.9ghz@1.4v. in all aspects is kills my previous phenom2 quad and the 1090t(hexacore) i had for one day.
here are my cinebench results. the i5 outperformed the overclocked amd x6
I don't know squat either... I have an AMD 645 which is a quad core. All i know is that this processor is way better than what i had in my ancient Dell. When i was looking at CPUs on NewEgg, the Intel CPUs were too confusing with all their numbers and crap so i just went with the AMD chip that was in my price range and had the most amount of cores.
yea intel chips are alot better according to my brother which is a pc nerd hahaha they cost more for a reason, and my next chip will be intel my current chip is a Phenom II X4 970 B.E. it's an awesome chip but no where near the top
Which is why I said intel chips. I know dick about AMD since the 64FX came out.
I know the frequency on an i7 vs c2d could be the same, the cache could be the same, same number of cores, and the i7'd still be better. But why. Is the bus speed higher?
yea intel chips are alot better according to my brother which is a pc nerd hahaha they cost more for a reason, and my next chip will be intel my current chip is a Phenom II X4 970 B.E. it's an awesome chip but no where near the top
he would be right. for years ive only built systems on the amd platform. i was always focused on the "good for the money" aspect of amd chips. but in reality, theyre not. theyre just less expensive, not necessarily good.
i just sold my phenomII945. i had it clocked at 3.7ghz. i do a lot of video encoding/converting. i had purchased a x6 1090t for a day and oc'd it to 4ghz, and i wasnt impressed at all. for the money the quad was a better performer.
one test i did was i took a 90min mkv 720 video and converted it to divx by the way of a 2-pass 720p run through tmpgenc. results were as follows:
now considering the 1090t was about $220 when i bought it, and the i5 i just got was the same price... amd cpu's are pretty shitty. i cant stand that im talking like an intel fanboy, but years of personal results dont lie, intel is just flat out better.
When I first started building my own computers about 12 years ago, I'd always have bad luck with Intel chips. They always managed to fry on me! I've stuck with AMD ever since, and I've never had a problem. Right now, I have a pretty slow 2 core AMD processor. I've been thinking about upgrading.
My girlfriend just bought a new laptop with an i7 in it, and that thing is freakin sweet... so without knowing any specifics, I can say that her system runs VERY fast.
I know less than any of you guys, though. My computer experience is about equivalent to that of an oil-change guy compared to a mechanical engineer!
Huh, my computer got a 5.9 too. Not sure how accurate this test is though :P
because the score isnt a true overall computer "experience" score. your windows score is just the lowest of all scores. my score is the same because of my hhd... eventhough my memory/cpu/gpu scores are all 7.7-7.9
Comment