New Build Phenom II or i7

[scaryjim]

OK, this is going to be my last post on this thread, because you appear to be deliberately misreading the tables, and I'm getting sick of repeating myself. You are also ignoring the fact that I'm not claiming outright leadership for AMD, simply making the case that they are competitive against Core 2 Quads and are therefore worth consideration (unless you are a hype-mislead Intel fanboy, apparently). You simply seem determined to find some way to justify your personal opinion that Intel is better than AMD, and I can't tell if you're serious or just trolling now.

Page 7: Intel, AMD, AMD
Page 8: Intel, Intel, Intel (Though the last test is appreciably irrelevant)
Page 9: AMD, AMD, AMD, Intel

So, page 7: In the first test, the 955BE beats the Q9550, but loses (narrowly) to the Q9650. In the other tests, it beats the Q9650 as well as the Q9550. If we are comparing the 955BE with the Q9550, (which we are, in response to your comment that the 955BE "falls behind" the Q9550) that's a win to AMD.

Page 8: As most LCD monitors have a refresh rate of 60Hz at native resolution, a higher frame-rate than this is actually physically incapable of being displayed on your monitor. So, if you did those tests side by side, you would not be able to see the difference. Yes, it indicates that the Q9550 is more capable at gaming - but not in a way that would make any difference to game play experience.

Page 9: As mentioned previously, the first graph is exactly the same as the first graph on Page 7. So a) it should be ignored, and b) your list of "wins" is internally inconsistent

Of course it's relevant. You wouldn't buy a CPU which excels in every benchmark except media when you want to use your new machine for editing video and transcoding.

Of course, but if it's a case of video encoding by itself, or video encoding and multitasking, the people it caters for are the same.

Very true - and the 955BE is better than the Q9550 in both scenarios. As I pointed out earlier, the 955BE beats the Q9550 in every multithreaded test. If you're buying a multicore processor, this should be the most relevant set of tests - otherwise you're wasting money on the extra cores! Hell, the Q9550 beats a Core i7 920 in hexus Pi-fast - that doesn't make it a better processor...

[sammorris]

So I'm trolling now? Interesting response.
You presumably misunderstood the reason for my argument - that the AMD is a competitive performer (I stick by my previous statement that overall the 955 is behind the 9550, but I mentioned in the past the difference was very slight), but overall the Intel is the better product, considering all factors, not just performance.

[scaryjim]

So I'm trolling now?

No, I said I couldn't tell if you were trolling - there's a subtle, but important, difference

You presumably misunderstood the reason for my argument - that the AMD is a competitive performer ... but overall the Intel is the better product, ...

In other words you're now choosing to agree with me? Interesting

As to the better product, that's as much a matter of opinion. I could refer you to the much better memory bandwidth from the onboard DDR3 memory controller, and the fact that the 955BE is based on the lastest socket (AM3) rather than the oldest socket (775) from it's manufacturer, but you can reasonably point out the better energy efficiency and single-thread performance. I'd personally go with the AMD, but I can understand why others would choose the Q9550.

And I know I said I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but you now seem to be being fairly reasonable, and we've reached some kind of middle ground (in as much as we both agree that the 955BE has competitive performance compared to the high-end Core 2 Quads). Of course, I still think you're wrong that the Q9550 is better: but that's just MNSHO

[sammorris]

In other words you're now choosing to agree with me? Interesting

In that sense I always was, I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding.

As to the better product, that's as much a matter of opinion. I could refer you to the much better memory bandwidth from the onboard DDR3 memory controller, and the fact that the 955BE is based on the lastest socket (AM3) rather than the oldest socket (775) from it's manufacturer, but you can reasonably point out the better energy efficiency and single-thread performance. I'd personally go with the AMD, but I can understand why others would choose the Q9550.

The OBMC is a nice technology, but I don't see the benefit of it in practice. The ridiculous speed Liquid Nitrogen tests clearly show what effect it has on removing the FSB limitations for overclocking, the 955 having apparently reached 7 gig. Ultimately though, the Core of the CPU is the real limiting factor for overclocks, and with the Phenom II architecture it's a lot lower when using a safe voltage, around 3.8Ghz for the AMDs, 4-4.2Ghz for the Core 2 Quads (though motherboard limitations often cap the Q9550 to 3.9). Obviously, considering the performance per clock of the CPUs, that puts the Intels ahead for that, one of the clear reasons I vote for the Intel, as running the Q9550 at 3.9Ghz, I have a 24/7 stable CPU at a speed no AMD can ever reach, the 955 included.

The socket argument is an interesting one, I've yet to hear anyone really use it in a Brand X vs Brand Y war, and the main reason for such is I'm not really sure there is an argument. Yes, Socket 775 is ancient compared to AM3, but does that really matter? The vast majority of Intel's sales are still on it, since it is the only way to buy a desktop system backbone (CPU, MoBo, RAM) from Intel that costs less than £450. Its future is only in jeopardy when the LGA1266 Midrange systems come into effect, and for Quad cores, that's going to be a long time away. Besides, we've already had the discussion about how new chipsets are what really screw long-term upgrade plans, not so much the sockets.
AMD have done this relatively well as most older AMD chipsets will take CPUs intended for the newer ones with only a BIOS flash needed, but are the sort of people who don't overclock necessary going to be proficient with BIOS flashing? I can understand there'll be some crossover, but I have my doubts. That said, AMD have had a fair few chipsets recently, at least as regular as Intel, possibly more so.

And I know I said I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but you now seem to be being fairly reasonable, and we've reached some kind of middle ground (in as much as we both agree that the 955BE has competitive performance compared to the high-end Core 2 Quads). Of course, I still think you're wrong that the Q9550 is better: but that's just MNSHO

And needless to say, I'm still firmly in the Intel ground. Ultimately, for new builds I will still recommend either the Q8400, Q9550, Q9650 or i7 for this sector, unless the user already has an AM2 system which will easily take a Phenom II, in which case, I will point them to the 940 or 955.