AMD, or Intel?

I would agree that the Core i7 is somewhat overpriced and hard to
justify for most users - at least at this time. A better comparison
to the Phenom II would be the Core2 series, and here the pricing is
very close.

Core2 Quad Q9650 3.0 GHz $324
Core2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz $264

The Phenom II 3.0 GHz *might* offer comparable performance, but the
Core2 has *proven* to be a terrific CPU for SolidWorks.

 

Please be clear, I am not saying the Phenom II x4 is faster. What I am
saying is that the majority of people wouldn't notice the difference in
a days work and so it wouldn't make sense to spend all the extra money
on the Intel item. Unless you are seeing more than 25% of your time
waiting on the cpu the 1.5x speed increase of an i7 probably isn't worth
it because it will only buy you 5-10 minutes a day.

Both the i7 and the Core2 are overpriced when it comes to performance.
At the price differential we see Paul Salvador's 2x-3x speed increase
recommendation is in play. As the quotes show below, it isn't just the
cpu price, but the cpu + mobo + memory = system price that is important.

While you may cast aspersions on AMD running SW reliably, we have heard
that one before. There is just nothing to justify that anymore than
saying the i7 cannot run SW reliably. AMD historically has had a very
good (*proven*) track record with SW.

Anandtech covered the performance price aspect:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492

 

Hey Paul,

I guess I'm not getting where you guys are with this on price/
performance because at Newegg I can get a i7 920 / Asus P6T mobo /
6gigs triple channel corsair,.. for under $800.
And for a Phenom II 940 black.. with a good asus mobo which supports
the latest and latest memory with 6 gigs,.. it's about $650 so.... I
don't get the big cost/performance thing you guys are talking about?
I'm pro - AMD and I think the Phenom II's are nice (finally) but what
was originally asked was who and what were the findings on performance/
stability for AMD using SW.
And, I agree, that AMD is worth it (at a risk). But, it really was
issue of what works now,.. what is more stable or what are the
relative known overall,.. and how does that weigh in for overall cost/
performance/stability... which cpu/mobo/memory.... get's that sweet
spot award?

I think clay was last at a E8500/Asus P5Q/memory?,... so,.. he's is
(imho) pretty much in the sweet spot?

Personally,.. if you build it yourself,.. the i7 920 is the better
overall deal,... but that is me. (also less hair pulled out,.. more
changes... fewer weekends lost,...)

I don't know, it's not easy for most people too justify the cost now
and it well may not pay itself off within the estimated lifetime and
use?

Conservatively,.. the E8500 is probably the safest balance within most
SW use right now?

Who knows,.. maybe there are some closet Phenom II 920/940 users
reading right now??

...

 

Paul,

I'm just providing an opposing viewpoint. Inoculation against herd
instinct if you will.

And I will say that either AMD dropped the ball or Intel just decided
after years of messing with the old Pentiums that they had to move
forward. The whole industry is seems to work on one or the other
dropping the ball in alternate succession. The danger comes when one or
the other becomes a monopoly.

Prices go up and down so the article I quoted could also be out of date.
With price it is, "true at the time of writing". I think Intel is
probably taking the route of charging every dime they can get for the
high performance models until price becomes an issue. We all know that
they just select those chips that run fastest out of the whole batch to
sell at a higher price point (or alternately, they lock down the
majority of chips to a lower speed). This means they can drop the price
if they need to compete. So competition is a good thing.

Prices also come down shortly before the next leap in performance takes
place. So if you buy an i7 today and in 3 months it's successor comes
out and puts it in the place the Phenom 940 is in today that price
difference won't look so good.

I am not sure where the "what works" argument comes from. Does anybody
seriously believe that there has been or will be an issue with a
processor from either manufacturer with SW? Given that SW is so
dependent on the underlying MSoft layers to run and that there is
nothing out there about Phenom's having any problems I don't get the FUD
argument. I don't recall seeing similar fears expressed when Intel came
out with the Core 2 or the i7 which were huge departures by Intel toward
the way AMD had been doing things. Prior to the Core 2 (actually the
Centrino was first) AMD ruled the roost in performance. I would tend to
think that SW tests their product on AMD and Intel as well since they
don't have hardware restrictions on CPU like they do on graphics. In
fact the only time I have ever seen a CPU problem with SW was back
around 2003/2004 when there was a compiler issue with Intel that caused
terrible performance.

From the SW open web site on System Requirements.

It is interesting that they don't support SW on Intel based Mac's. (They
also can't spell Macintosh.)

TOP

 

I read up on the reviews of the Phenom II on various hardware
websites. Overall, the 3.0 GHz Phenom II 940 performs about the same
as the 2.66 GHz Intel Core2 Quad Q9400.

Then I went to Xi Computer and configured otherwise identical systems
with the Phenom II 940 and the C2Q 9400 (4GB RAM, 160GB Velociraptor
HDD, Quadro FX570). The Intel system was $81 (or 6.9%) more expensive
than the AMD system. So, for someone looking for an entry level
system for SolidWorks, the AMD is a marginally better value.

BUT, that is the top of the line for AMD and middle of the pack for
Intel. The Intel system could be configured with a 3.0 GHz quad core
or 3.33 GHz dual core CPU for an additional $209 or $149
respectively. Is the time that you'd save on a system that is 12-28%
faster worth $200? I think most engineers would answer with a
resounding "YES".

OTOH, a system with a Core i7 940 2.93 GHz would be about 10% faster
than the 3.0 GHz C2Q 9650 on most operations and nearly 20% faster on
renderings - but it would cost $609 or 45.6% more. Is that worth
the extra cost? Personally, I find it hard to justify for most users,
but for some, it will be worth every penny.

So, back to the original question: AMD or Intel? For those on a
tight budget looking for a system that costs less than $1200, AMD is a
viable alternative to Intel. Anyone looking for higher performance at
a still reasonable cost, should look at the higher end Intel Core2
processors. If price is not object, then the Core i7 is the top
performer, albeit at a premium price.

 

Hello Paul,

Yeah,... I hear what you're say'n,.. most systems today will work as
is and points taken about new technology (i7) and not giving the
Phenon II a fair shake.

So, to be fair,... core i7 is new technology which needs a whole new
motherboard (and memory). and it should be scrutinized over,...

Phenon II,.. which is a cpu upgrade or better cpu Phenon.version can
be used as relatively simple upgrade on many later AMD motherboards.
So,.. for those needing a quick inexpensive performance fix,.. Phenon
II is a very good option!

And,.. I hear you on the Mac stuff,... whatz wit dat!?!?! Obviously
SW does not want to test it so, it's a CYA notice.

It is important for the users too be aware and use their buying power
(vote) as a way to support and drive the computing industry to be
healthy and competitive,.. we all win.

...

 

sure,.. in this economy,.. it's a balance of what you can justify for
your return.
I think for most,.. the performance upgrades with be in the 1.5X
factor range.
And, not to forget,.. the overhead of moving to a new OS,.... Vista,
which is on nearly every new system.
By the end of the year,.. Vista with be OUT and Windoze 7 will be IN.

btw,... I've trialed Windoze 7 and yes,.. it's better than Vista,
imho, but... it's still Vista!?!? More like,.. Vista 2.X.
Now,.. I personally believe the whole hype on Windoze 7 is because of
the economy and these writers (shaking in their boots) are all have
their pom-poms out with full force!
Can you blame them,... no. Nothing wrong with positive thoughts and
guess what,... there ain't now other option.

...

 

Paul,

I'm just getting tired of the constant need to upgrade everything. PTC
and UG don't make demands on new hardware nearly as often as SW does
imho. I reviewed my box today because of some 2009 issues. Although 2009
runs acceptably for what I do, SW doesn't cert the graphics card and
what used to be a lot of memory now isn't. No doubt 2010 will change the
picture again.

I was happy running SW on W95 and did so for a long, long time. There
was no performance difference with NT 4.0 and the whole deal would run
on a machine with 128Mb Ram and a 1Gb hard drive. Many young'ns here
won't even know how that is possible. Then I played the upgrade game for
a while and have a whole box of mobos to show for it. And with all the
hardware upgrades SW is still slower than it was on that W95 box for
much of the work I do.

90% of the improvement SW makes do not affect what I do and the
improvements I have always needed badly have never come.

<flame off>

So I am contemplating building an AMD box just to see what can be done.
I think I have found some playing field levelers, but like I mentioned,
it is time to upgrade because SW won't run on approved (in the past)
hardware any more.

TOP

 

Jim,

I went on Xi's site and configured 3 1/2 machines identical as can be. I
quoted the lowest cost components other than CPU, memory, graphics and
mobo. No OS or hids just to make the difference in price a CPU can bring
obvious. Clearly there is a big difference even for comparable
performance. This is not an $81 difference and if you factor in the
effect of a hotter graphics card the AMD wins over the Intel at the
Q9550 or Q9650 level. I would put the Phenom up with the Q9550 or Q9650
Intel chips on average, not the Q9400. With Intel having so many choices
you can pretty much ask how much do you want to spend and find a
processor for that.

AMD Phenom II X4 940, 4Gb DDR2, Asus mobo, NVidia FX1700, 160gb hdd, no
OS, no monitor, mouse or keyboard. $1,379
AMD Phenom II X4 940, 4Gb DDR2, Asus mobo, NVidia FX1700, 160gb hdd, no
OS, no monitor, mouse or keyboard. $1,729

Intel i7 965 on Asus mobo, everything else the same. $2,559
Intel C2 Q9650, ditto. $1,719.

For the difference in comparable CPU if I go with AMD I can get the
higher end video card giving a boost to the system on large assembly
rendering for $10 more.