Since I was last looking at buying hardware, CPUs have changed a lot. Could someone please summarise the differences between Intel and AMD, and maybe their respective sub-types? Dual/Triple/Quad core I understand, but what are the real-life advantages? Are they taken advantage of properly?
Basically, right now anyway, the Intel processors are simply more efficient -- they perform an instruction in fewer cpu cycles than an AMD processor. Much like when the Athlon was blowing away the Pentium 4s. If you tend to multi-task, switching between sessions rapidly, the more cores and L3 memory the better.
I'm definately a multi-tasker: am a web-dev, so I use Eclipse/Zend, graphics software, various browsers, and I sometimes watch a video at the same time.
OK, here goes... Intel Core i3 - released in a couple of weeks. Dual-core, integrated GPU. Low-end Core i5 - Core 2 replacements, really. 4 cores. Core i7 - top-end. 8 cores (4 physical, 4 logical). Covers both socket 1366 and 1156, which means you have to be wary. Some i7 processors are incompatible with i7 motherboards. AMD Phenom II - comes in 2, 3, 4 core variants, X2, X3 and X4 respectively. Technically all quad-core chips. Can be unlocked on some motherboards if the locked cores are functional. Athlon II - as above, but with no L3 cache. Impacts on multi-tasking, but not too shabby for gaming. Can get a quad-core chip for £100, which isn't bad at all! My personal ranking system: Core i7 1366 Core i5 Phenom II Athlon II I've purposely left Core i3 and i7 1156 off there. I don't believe the 1156 i7s are worth it, and the i3s are good for office PCs etc, but not much else (they're also not available yet). Phenom II ranks behind Core i5 because, for the cost of a bus ticket, the performance difference is well worth it. Athlon II would beat Phenom II on price, but since you're multi-tasking, I'd rank it lower. And now watch me get flamed by anyone who owns a Phenom II or a 1156 i7.
The core i3 is like the Celeron of the core i's series. In other word a broken Core i7 chip which was worked on to make it work. I don't recommend getting that. For the Core i7 series, they are 2 models that is interesting... as the rest is simply too expensive (waayyy overpriced, due to the lack of competition), the Core i7 860 and 920. The core i7 860 is one 1156 socket, and the 920 on the 1366 socket. - The Core i7 860 is faster than the 920, however doesn't overclock as well as the 920. - The Core i7 920 overclocked easier and can be set to the same performance or be a little faster than the 860. - The Core i7 860 produces less heat and consumes less power than the 920. - However, the Core i7 860 supports only dual channel memory, while the 920 supports triple channel. You will also notice that the 860 motherboard is cheaper in price over the 920, this is due that triple channel memory support is not there, hence cheaper to produce. - Finally, the Core i7 860 motherboard chipset, supports only 8x PCI-E SLI/Crossfire. That means that when you do SLI or Crossfire setup, your pci-e lanes, pass from 16x down to 8x. If you SLI/Crossfire to get an addition monitor attach, and not for maximizing gaming performance purposes, this doesn't concern you. Also if you don't care about SLI/Crossfire, again it doesn't concern you, as the PCI-E lines goes at 16X, like normal, when a single GPU is used. - The Core i7 920 is 16x per lanes when you do SLI or Crossfire, same when you only gave 1GPU on your system. That is was the comparison of the Core i7 860 and 920, 2 very popular core i7 CPU's. The Core i5, is a Core i7 800 series, but without HT (Hyper-threading), and a little slower that's about it. They are only on socket 1156, hence has the same features of teh chipset as mentioned above for the 860. The Core i7 920 is designed for people that require extreme performance out of their system, hence the need of triple channel memory. If you just game, than you won't use the triple channel memory, not even in the several years to come. We are not there yet. Also, future CPU upgrades will be more expensive as this socket CPU's are much more expensive. The 920 is the only one that is "affordable". The Core i7 860 is one designed for less demanding systems, ideal for people who needs a lot of power for work and gaming (if you don't care about SLI or crossfire). The i5 is if you are on a budget. I recommend the 860, as the additional features of the 920 are the ones you will never use, unless you use one of them today (SLI/Crossfire or triple channel memory). And if your not the person that loves to overclock CPU's to the max, again the 860 is what you need. Also, I don't see the SLI ro Crossfire useful for gaining performance, the price of 1 higher end GPU is at worst the same price as buying 2 GPU's, if not, cheaper; in addition you will lack the new features of the new, powerful GPU. So, it's really not worth it, unless you have a specific reason why you need to have this. The 860 on this forum is not very popular, as most people here love the fact of having something they can overclock the **** of it, without caring of the longevity of the processor and replace it in the following year. OR the system is used only for pure gaming, and they want every last fps gain, by going SLI/crossfire. But for a work/gaming system the 860 is what is ideal. For a work computer only, the Core i5 is ideal.
Wow, that's some amazing effort you guys put in, thank you! (+rep) It seems you both agree on the Core i7 range, so I will focus my research on those. I still can't believe the confusing naming conventions the industry uses, look at all those numbers!
I thought the i3, where 32nm dual core parts with integrated graphics rather than broken i7's? Until tested and performance results are released how can you recommend not to get one? After all, the phenom II 720 and 550 are broken 955's yet they where fantastic chips. Just like to add that the Phenom II X2 550 out paces the cheaper Athlon quads except in a couple of benchmarks. It also retails for around the same price. AMD flooded the lower market at every price point so it can get confusing. The dark horse which really shines tho is the Athlon II X3 425 which matches a Phenom II X3 720 both at stock and when both are overclocked to the max. Phenom II 955 or 965 only really make sense when upgrading an exsisting system. Hte price difference between them and i5 now is now so close that the few £ extra will get you a vastly superior processor. The jump from i5 to LGA1366 is slightly more but the 920 is a fantastic processor. Goodbytes and MaverickWill did a good job of explaining the differences between LGA1366 and LGA1156. Id like to add tho that I remember CPC saying that the i7 860 ran at overclocked speeds more often than the i5. That was when the computer overclocked itself rather than manual overclocking.
