PDA

View Full Version : Are sandy bridge architecture intel CPUs really that much better?



Dustin2128
July 24th, 2011, 04:40 AM
I know, I know, I post a hardware question thread nearly every week. But I've got another. I've read a lot of good things about sandy bridge architecture intel CPUs lately, and I wanted to ask people who have owned them- are they really as good as they sound? I'm saving up still for my build because I've kept upping my standards (else I would have a nice Phenom II x2 system going by now...), and I'm really wondering whether they're worth the price premium. A few of the i5 quad cores are in my range, a bit more than Phenom II x6s, but affordable. I do quite a lot of video encoding and it is painfully slow on my Pentium D.

Bandit
July 24th, 2011, 05:15 AM
I was looking at some benchmarks over on Anandtech and I was very impressed. Some I5s come close or where the same but over all the I7s are smoking everything included Phenom 6 core AMD chips. I wouldnt say the performance is extremely faster, but faster none the less.

Dustin2128
July 24th, 2011, 06:53 AM
I was thinking of picking up a quad core/8 thread i7 for about 300$, and keeping my GPU instead. The overclocking potential.. 4.5GHz on air.

PhantmKllr
July 24th, 2011, 06:55 AM
Yes. Sandy Bridge = awesomeness.

mips
July 24th, 2011, 10:53 AM
yes. Sandy bridge = awesomeness.

+1

koleoptero
July 24th, 2011, 11:57 AM
The phenom II x6 pack more punch per $ though.

DoFlooterMoose
July 24th, 2011, 04:43 PM
I have always, and will be always, a fan of AMD. The price and performance are great. But for the first time in my life, I have to say, I am very impressed with Intel. I had the pleasure of working on a neighbours computer a few weeks ago, and upgraded him from XP x86 to 7 x64. And was having some compatability issues with XP, so he asked for the upgrade. He just had it built with the i5, 3GB of RAM, and a Gigabyte Mobo. couldnt tell you the rest of the specks. But it was way faster than I expected. If I wasn't such a hardcore AMD fan. I would defiantly be using the i5 or i7.

at least until Bulldozer is released 8) then I would switch back

NMFTM
July 24th, 2011, 05:00 PM
The phenom II x6 pack more punch per $ though.
It does, but it depends on how the software that runs on the CPU is written. For most software, you're probably better off having 4 cores running at higher speeds (GHz =/= speed) than 6 cores running at lower speeds but having more overall speed combined. Especially when it comes to older software that was written when multi-core CPUs were first coming out.

There are also certain programs coded to run better on i7's to specifically take advantage of their hyperthreading technologies.

3Miro
July 24th, 2011, 07:08 PM
It does, but it depends on how the software that runs on the CPU is written. For most software, you're probably better off having 4 cores running at higher speeds (GHz =/= speed) than 6 cores running at lower speeds but having more overall speed combined. Especially when it comes to older software that was written when multi-core CPUs were first coming out.

There are also certain programs coded to run better on i7's to specifically take advantage of their hyperthreading technologies.

4 vs 6 cores depends on the app that you are running, however, the difference between AMD and Intel comes from the money. The highest Phenom II is at the same price with low end i5 Sandy Bridge. And this doesn't take into account that Intel Motherboards are also more expensive, with this you may go to the i3 level. There is no way for an i3 to beat Phenom II x6 single or multi-threaded.

As for program coded specifically for Intel CPUs, those exist, but they are rare.

Gremlinzzz
July 25th, 2011, 02:57 AM
I know, I know, I post a hardware question thread nearly every week. But I've got another. I've read a lot of good things about sandy bridge architecture intel CPUs lately, and I wanted to ask people who have owned them- are they really as good as they sound? I'm saving up still for my build because I've kept upping my standards (else I would have a nice Phenom II x2 system going by now...), and I'm really wondering whether they're worth the price premium. A few of the i5 quad cores are in my range, a bit more than Phenom II x6s, but affordable. I do quite a lot of video encoding and it is painfully slow on my Pentium D.
I had to do it.
Good Luck a mans got to do what a mans got to do:)

Bandit
July 25th, 2011, 03:12 AM
4 vs 6 cores depends on the app that you are running, however, the difference between AMD and Intel comes from the money. The highest Phenom II is at the same price with low end i5 Sandy Bridge. And this doesn't take into account that Intel Motherboards are also more expensive, with this you may go to the i3 level. There is no way for an i3 to beat Phenom II x6 single or multi-threaded.

As for program coded specifically for Intel CPUs, those exist, but they are rare.

This is very very true.

I would like to have a top of the line I7, I would also like to have top of the line BMW.. Both are not going to happen any time soon.. :)

wolfen69
July 25th, 2011, 05:19 AM
The phenom II x6 pack more punch per $ though.

This. During real world use, I doubt most people will notice much, if any difference. Benchmarks never tell the whole story.

And on windows pc's, I think there would be even less of a difference, considering windows' ability to get crapped up easily, and slow down over time. I'll take AMD's better bang for $$$ anyday.

PhillyPhil
July 25th, 2011, 05:52 AM
There are also certain programs coded to run better on i7's to specifically take advantage of their hyperthreading technologies.

Hyperthreading can be a blessing or a curse. Perhaps positive a bit more often than negative, but still it really depends on what you're doing: hyperthreading can mean a performance boost OR a performance hit. You might save wasted cycles, or you might get bogged down by the extra overhead.

disabledaccount
July 25th, 2011, 09:44 AM
You might save wasted cycles, or you might get bogged down by the extra overhead.Exactly. Generaly I think that extensions like HT and 3DNow should not exist OR should be stadarised - otherwise they are just marketing junk, because You need special/dedicated software to gain better performance. HT is however more crappy, because unlike 3DNow it can significantly slow down the CPU.

chegarty
July 25th, 2011, 10:06 AM
Sandy Bridge is no joke. It's quite a nice situation: Intel is quite Linux-friendly as a company and they have an excellent set of chips in the new Core i5 and i7 lines.

That being said, AMD processors are no slouches either, and they're probably a better deal for what you get.

KiwiNZ
July 25th, 2011, 10:13 AM
I have one of the new Sandy Bridge IMacs and it is a big improvement over my old one , which was a year old.

I also have a Sand Bridge PC in my Sandpit and it is awesome.

forrestcupp
July 25th, 2011, 01:23 PM
If you want to spend less and go with an i5 instead of an i7, make sure you're getting a true quad core. Other than turbo boost, a 2 core/4 thread i5 exactly the same as an i3.