AMD, or Intel?

the i7-920 a 40% more expensive purchase. For the difference in platform cost you could purchase a faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, or even put money towards an SSD. Core i7's total cost of ownership keeps it from being Phenom II's direct competition; instead Phenom II is really competing with Intel's 45nm Core 2 Quad processors.

It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a step in the right direction.

better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock speed to keep you happy in the long run.

comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X4 920 falls behind. The Q9400 is the better buy of the two, but only if Intel does come through with rumored price cuts. We'll know for sure by the end of the month.

samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without increasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm process. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum clock speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Core i7 is Intel's second

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Prices go up and down so the article I quoted could also be out of date.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.

..

make the i7-920 a 40% more expensive purchase. For the difference in platfo= rm cost you could purchase a faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, or ev= en put money towards an SSD. Core i7's total cost of ownership keeps it fro= m being Phenom II's direct competition; instead Phenom II is really competi= ng with Intel's 45nm Core 2 Quad processors.

en. It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a st= ep in the right direction.

e better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not = the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price o= f the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the = recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 9=

comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X=

view samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without i= ncreasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm= process. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum c= lock speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Cor= e i7 is Intel's second 45nm processor while Phenom II is AMD's first; it wi= ll only get better with time.

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.

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.