AMD reduces CPU prices to keep market share

[dartaz]

1055T eats 760's for breakfast.

Only in multi-threaded applications (and the difference is not that big)

In gaming, and application that use 4 or less core, i5 760 beats 1055T

920's also.

No, it doesn't

Also i7 870 beats 1090T in majority of benchmarks
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18799/1

[generics_user]

Only in multi-threaded applications (and the difference is not that big)

In gaming, and application that use 4 or less core, i5 760 beats 1055T



No, it doesn't

Also i7 870 beats 1090T in majority of benchmarks
http://techreport.com/articles.x/18799/1

LOL @ cinebench R10 (who uses this crap again; it can't even properly import FBX data and other newer formats); in cinebench R11.5 X6 cpus eat i7 for breakfast, let alone overclocked X6s which increase the lead even further over overclocked i7 cpus

EPICLOL @ 3dsmax 8.0: this program is from 2005 and there are 5 (!) newer version adding very important features; no one really keeps using 3dsmax 8, if yozu take a look at version 2010 you'll find that 1090t is better than every 4-core i7 cpu (while being cheaper) and 1055t is as fast as it 860 (and 100$ cheaper)

The rendering resolutions which are a COMPLETE joke (who really renders in 1024x768; you can't even print something like this into a magazine....)

the lack of any adobe software makes this review even sader (even though adobe is favored by intel cps), IMO there is no hardware site out there doing proper reviews on processors...

[dartaz]

LOL @ cinebench R10 (who uses this crap again; it can't even properly import FBX data and other newer formats); in cinebench R11.5 X6 cpus eat i7 for breakfast, let alone overclocked X6s which increase the lead even further over overclocked i7 cpus

EPICLOL @ 3dsmax 8.0: this program is from 2005 and there are 5 (!) newer version adding very important features; no one really keeps using 3dsmax 8, if yozu take a look at version 2010 you'll find that 1090t is better than every 4-core i7 cpu (while being cheaper) and 1055t is as fast as it 860 (and 100$ cheaper)

The rendering resolutions which are a COMPLETE joke (who really renders in 1024x768; you can't even print something like this into a magazine....)

the lack of any adobe software makes this review even sader (even though adobe is favored by intel cps), IMO there is no hardware site out there doing proper reviews on processors...

How many people use their computers for 3d rendering ?

And please don't ever mention i7 920 or i7 860. Because those have been replaced by i7 930 and i7 870

EDIT:
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...Ix6/chart9.jpg

I have searched for cinebench R11.5 benchmark, and it seems that difference between 1090T and i7 870/930 is very small. It does not eat i7 for breakfast as you claim, not even close. Also, thats just one bechmark and Like I said before not many people use 3d rendering. What about other benchmarks ?

You are simply comparing AMD and Intel processors in one or few softwares/benchmarks that favors AMD processor, and then making up a conclusion.

[Humminn55]

You are simply comparing AMD and Intel processors in one or few softwares/benchmarks that favors AMD processor, and then making up a conclusion.

Such is the way of both AMD and Intel fanbois. Cherry pick benches that favor their particular processor and ignore anything else.

Some of the comments posted in this thread almost seem directly copied from AMDZone.

Such is life, though.

[RaV[666]]

Intel cpu`s are of course more productive, they are also cheaper to produce.Which puts intels pricing in some perspective.
What is also an important factor is overall platform cost, which in case of amd vs intel clearly shows building amd rig is much cheaper.Of course there are pricy amd motherboards, but there are also very cheap ones, supporting x6 cpus ,and decent overclock on them also.
Thing is, intel is milking.They can, because a) people are uninformed b) they were(are?) doing non competetive practices c)they can throw huge amounts of money on advertising and pushing theyre infrastructure.

[Humminn55]

the lack of any adobe software makes this review even sader (even though adobe is favored by intel cps), IMO there is no hardware site out there doing proper reviews on processors...

So you take what you can get from different review sites.

As for Photoshop performance, this was written in one review:

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance

To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.

The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.

Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.

Performance here is good, but even Photoshop doesn't make consistent enough use of all six cores to really give the Phenom II X6 the edge it needs here. It's faster than the Phenom II X4, but not faster than the Core i5 750.

[RaV[666]]

As you see, results vary ;-)

[Manicdan]

^and how does that program suck with core scaling?

[geo]

It's been posted before...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...ol_Lineup.html

thanks informal! missed that earlier

[Nintendork]

As software improves, a lot of previous benchmark got worthless (CS4 / CS5 case).

[=SOC= Admiral]

To finish this off I suggest that someone (not me as i don't have the resources) Does a mass test with the cpus on all benchmarking programs and compile the results. This way there can be no bias as some are catered toward AMD and some are catered toward Intel. I have a 1055T and I like it. My room mate in college is getting a 1075T when they come out only because AMD is better for his wallet.

[Calmatory]

Guys, you suck! So does AMD!

...and Intel for that matter.

I eat both Intel and AMD for breakfast.

[Nintendork]

To finish this off I suggest that someone (not me as i don't have the resources) Does a mass test with the cpus on all benchmarking programs and compile the results. This way there can be no bias as some are catered toward AMD and some are catered toward Intel. I have a 1055T and I like it. My room mate in college is getting a 1075T when they come out only because AMD is better for his wallet.

Just killing my time I read today's fudzilla review:

As usual the AMD CPUs are a tad slower clock by clock and due to limitations of mostly not AMD optimized codebase. In the latest FCC ruling against Intel, it come to light that Intel might have slowed the competition on purpose, which is not a nice thing to do. Would we use later software version of the x264 codec AMD would have beaten an Intel i7-975, but as you know to retest every platfrom and CPU takes lots time.

http://www.fudzilla.com/reviews/revi...m-ii-x6/page-6

[Manicdan]

Just killing my time I read today's fudzilla review:



http://www.fudzilla.com/reviews/revi...m-ii-x6/page-6

what idiot picked the colors in that review, i cant tell the difference between most of them

[terrace215]

what idiot picked the colors in that review, i cant tell the difference between most of them

Presumably the same one that thinks "the FCC ruled against Intel."

They don't seem to have any editors...

[Manicdan]

Presumably the same one that thinks "the FCC ruled against Intel."

They don't seem to have any editors...

i read more of the review

they like to use logarithmic scale in some graphs:


kind funny how 2k and 4k CB single thread scores look

[madcho]

R10 is very very old.

[FlanK3r]

and this is only 32-bit version, dont scale so good as in 64-bit...

[Manicdan]

R10 is very very old.

and this is only 32-bit version, dont scale so good as in 64-bit...

i didnt post it for the numbers, i posted it because that site thought it was ok to use a scale that is completely horrible for describing differences. they did it for most of their charts

[saaya]

hmmm did intel launch new cpus? did they drop prices? then why would amds price drops be a response to intels competing products?
that doesnt really make much sense to me... sounds more like they are upping the ante and preparing to launch new parts?

[terrace215]

Intel benefits much more from the return of corporate spending-- amd relies a lot more on the consumer, which is weaker right now, so one could well imagine they are unilaterally cutting some prices in an effort to meet their revenue goals.

[god_43]

Refer to his earlier post.

i see what you mean...nm then.