Processor/Motherboard Performance Question

[Greatguardian]

Hiya Tech,

I'm currently in the market to upgrade my self-built PC sometime around May-June and I had a couple questions about Processors. My current build is this:

OS: Windows 7 Professional x64
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 x2 3800+ 2.00Ghz Socket 939
Motherboard: ASUSTek NODUSM3 1.05 Socket 939
RAM: 3GB (512MB, 512MB, 1GB, 1GB mixed brand) DDR2
HDD: WDC WD20 00JS-60NCB1 (200GB)
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD5750 1GB DDR5 PCI-E x16

Obviously, the processor and motherboard are quite a bit behind the times. I haven't touched those parts in years, and most stores I've looked at don't even carry Socket 939s any more. Therefore, I'm likely going to have to replace the Processor, Motherboard, and RAM altogether as I'm sure most newer motherboards take DDR3 instead of DDR2.

I've been browsing newegg to get a good idea of my estimated costs, and I noticed that Intel's i7 series is assloads more expensive than what appear to be comparable AMD Phenom II chips. Is there something I'm overlooking about the i7 series that makes it worth so much more?

For example, this i7-940 2.66Ghz Quad core processor ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115202 ) goes for nearly $300, where as this Phenom II X4 965 3.4 Ghz Quad core processor ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103727 ) is under $200.

There is a similar ~$100 price gap between i7 compatible motherboards, and Phenom II compatible motherboards as well. Am I completely missing something here? Is the i7 chip so vastly superior to the 0.8 x 4 Ghz faster Phenom II chip that it warrants the price tag? Is this just something that has to do with integrated features on the i7 Motherboard that I won't be using? (ie: Integrated Graphics). What's going on?

Personally, I doubt I'll have more than $400-$500 to spend immediately in May/June, so I'm leaning towards the AMD chipset (taking into account that I'll likely have to spend ~$100 on DDR3 RAM). However, I don't want to be missing out on a considerable performance gap if one does exist. Pretty much what I'm asking, is is the i7 chipset really worth the extra time/money? Am I missing another alternative? Am I completely clueless?

Thanks

Edit: Dunno if it makes a difference, but the case I'm using (due entirely to sheer laziness) is that of a HP Pavilion a1600n Media. Yay re-using parts?

[Isiolia]

As has been the case for quite some time, you can't just directly compare processors on cycles alone. The architectures are different. An i7 920 is a more powerful CPU than the Phenom II x4 965.

AMD has been offering competitive products at the lower end of the scale, however, so it's not as though they're irrelevant.

I think the main thing that you're missing is that Intel has two desktop platforms out right now. The i7 920 is an LGA 1366 CPU, which right now would be an X58 chipset. This is the higher-end of their product line, so sure, the motherboards are going to be more expensive as well.

Their more midrange/consumer level platform is the LGA 1156 socket P55/H55/H57 chipsets. The i7 800 series, and the i3/i5 series CPUs are what go into 'em, rather than the 900-series i7s.

An i5 750 is priced much more similarly to the Phenom you're looking at, but is still a better performer. So you may want to check that out instead with the budget you're on.

[Greatguardian]

Aah, I see. I haven't been in the market for mobo/processors in, literally, years so I didn't realize the difference.

If that's the case, should I grab an i5 750 or the like in a couple months? Or would it be worth the extra paycheck or two to wait and grab an i7 920? I plan to use the machine to game fairly heavily, though on a single monitor using DVI rather than an hdtv or anything fancy like that.

I also don't really plan to upgrade again anytime fairly soon, so whatever I buy will need to stay at least moderately "in the game" for a few years if at all possible. I don't want to get caught having to buy an entirely new mobo/processor combo again because my socket got phased out. Unfortunately, that may just plain be unavoidable the way the market is developing these days, so if that's the case then I suppose it's not a big deal. It just means I'd need to make the current purchase last as long as possible.

[Waraji]

Not planning to upgrade anytime soon, hell go for the i7 920, I know I did. Not only will it last you a a long while, but the motherboard compatibility with the future hexacore line will theoretically save you some component $ for future possible upgrades. ^^ I get my i7 & mb in 3 days whoop!

[Isiolia]

Tecnically, the LGA 1366 platform has higher performance potential. Here is an article with a good comparison between the 1156/1366 platforms, and initial performance reviews of some of the P55 platform CPUs.

Basically, you're losing triple channel (not a big performance deal) and PCIe lanes. Intel's higher end 6-core n' such CPUs will also be LGA 1366, but they'll also be rather expensive.
Unless you're looking at a higher end multi-GPU setup, however, the X58 platform doesn't give you a whole lot of extra performance. Even with a single 5850, it is slightly faster, but not necessarily to the point you'd even notice.

At stock clocks, I think the i5 750 makes more sense (or an i7 860) for what you've mentioned. Turbo mode (which the 920 lacks) pulls them ahead on many recent/current games, since most aren't quad-core capable.

Overclocked, and/or with a higher end GPU setup, the 920 fares far better. Keeping in mind that many i7 920s will hit 4Ghz on air. Not that the P55 CPUs are bad overclockers either, just that you overcome to the relative clockspeed difference when the 920 is OC'ed.

[Olo401]

I'll start by say this is an excellent question, and probably one of the most asked by hardware novices or those who have been out of the loop for a while. I had the same questions when I rebuilt a year and a half ago.

This debate all revolves around what's known as the megahertz myth - or the idea that you can tell what processor is fastest just by looking at the clock speed written on the box. Actually, this might have been true in the early days of microprocessors when all of them used the same instruction set and just added on circuits.

Today there are several factors that are used to rate the speed and efficiency of a CPU. They include..

- Size of the processor die - a smaller die reduces the length of the circuits, shorter circuits mean less time to communicate (latency), and less chance for errors due to outside interference (stuff like radio waves or static electricity).
- How the die is constructed - putting certain otfen-used circuit combinations near each other so they can get work done faster. Less latency again..
- What features are included in the CPU - Athlons had the memory & a basic VGA graphics controller built into the CPU over 5 years ago.. they did it to reduce system latency (there's that word again!); Intel just recently started doing this with the Core i3/i5/i7.
- How many physical/logical cores a CPU has, and how they are linked - the original Core 2 line was based solely on the dual-core model. Quads were just two Duo core dies put into the same piece of silicon with a few tie-ins, and they would work independently. The new Core i-series integrated the cores much closer together so that they work more as a team. Of course, you also need to have an OS and programs that are able to take advantage of multiple cores and multiple threads to get the full benefit.
- How much CPU cache is available - this is one of the most overlooked features on any processor, and it's been overlooked for years. Just like the entire computer needs plenty of memory to load programs, operate peripherals, and render graphics, the CPU itself needs built-in memory so that it can pull a chunk of information from the main system memory, keeping it nearby so it can be processed quickly and with low latency, then send the result back out. More cache on a processor means larger chunks or data can be processed before the CPU has to go back out to the memory banks, which means faster processing.

Clock speed does still matter, which is why overclocking is so popular among enthusiasts and gamers. Tho to be fair, it only matters within a single family of processors, and even then within each family you'll have several groups with different cache sizes.

[Darus Grey]

Also you need to decide whether you're going to OC or not, there's honestly no reason NOT to...but I understand less technically fluent people get scared by it.

The reason is because, as pointed out the i5 750 is comparable in price to the AMD 965...until you take OCing into account, in which case the 965 can drastically out-perform due to much higher maximum stable potential.

So you have to take what you do with the hardware into account when comparing value vs power.

[Isiolia]

Also you need to decide whether you're going to OC or not, there's honestly no reason NOT to...but I understand less technically fluent people get scared by it.

The reason is because, as pointed out the i5 750 is comparable in price to the AMD 965...until you take OCing into account, in which case the 965 can drastically out-perform due to much higher maximum stable potential.

So you have to take what you do with the hardware into account when comparing value vs power.

From what I'd seen (granted, not too in-depth) was that the i5 and the 965 both O/C similarly and that it's then more application dependent. Unless maybe the newer 965s go higher than ~3.9Ghz?

[Darus Grey]

I've seen stable OCs up to 4.3 on stock fan, 4-4.1 probably being more realistic since it's random depending on your particular cpu, and yeah...application dependent since you lose hyperthreading, which is really hit or miss in itself...sometimes it's a gain in multithreaded apps...sometimes it's a gigantic performance loss.

i5 is definitely a better option if you plan to stay at reference levels though.

[desertigloo]

if you're worried about the price cost of the i7 920, see if you have a local microcenter. I went in and got one for $200, but they dont sell them for that price online. The $100 savings should let you get some nicer compenents in other areas and help increase the speed of your PC overall.

Didn't read the thread, so sorry if someone mentioned it.

[Olo401]

Also you need to decide whether you're going to OC or not, there's honestly no reason NOT to...but I understand less technically fluent people get scared by it.

The reason is because, as pointed out the i5 750 is comparable in price to the AMD 965...until you take OCing into account, in which case the 965 can drastically out-perform due to much higher maximum stable potential.

So you have to take what you do with the hardware into account when comparing value vs power.

From what I'd seen (granted, not too in-depth) was that the i5 and the 965 both O/C similarly and that it's then more application dependent. Unless maybe the newer 965s go higher than ~3.9Ghz?

That's exactly what I've seen. The i5 does better in some things while the Phenom II wins in others, and both are about equal when it comes to gaming. And they both overclock well. So from a value and performance standpoint it's really a wash.

However when it comes to technology, Intel is still over a year ahead of AMD. That's demonstrated by the Core i7s.

[Isiolia]

I've seen stable OCs up to 4.3 on stock fan, 4-4.1 probably being more realistic since it's random depending on your particular cpu, and yeah...application dependent since you lose hyperthreading, which is really hit or miss in itself...sometimes it's a gain in multithreaded apps...sometimes it's a gigantic performance loss.

i5 is definitely a better option if you plan to stay at reference levels though.

Ah, okay. Initial review I recall seeing had it become unstable past 3.9Ghz, and Anand did a comparison between both the i5 and the 965 at 3.8Ghz, which had them still pretty close (and the 860 n' 920 for that matter). Pretty sure you can go more aggressive on all of them though, as I've heard of 4Ghz on the Intels as well.