System Requirements?

[Shurdus]

for Civ, all I want is less and less time for an AI turn...

I guess the CPU needed is something that does multi-threaded calculation fast...
I beleive number od cores and threads WILL count here...

You would think that, but games really do a poor job of using all cores. Benchmarks show that performance is greatly enhanced by a second core, games benefit a bit from a third core - but not much - and beyond that adding more cores to the processor does little to improve the game speed. I suppose that is because from there on the speed with which the CPU can process info is not the bottleneck factor in game speed any more.

 

[civ_king]

You would think that, but games really do a poor job of using all cores. Benchmarks show that performance is greatly enhanced by a second core, games benefit a bit from a third core - but not much - and beyond that adding more cores to the processor does little to improve the game speed. I suppose that is because from there on the speed with which the CPU can process info is not the bottleneck factor in game speed any more.

Fritz 11, a fine example of a multithreaded game disagrees

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

I'll hope for 2-3gb with ram...

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

Question - if you have (say) an i5 with built-in graphics, is that used instead of a graphics card or does it complement it, help it out, take off some of the load?

 

[civ_king]

Question - if you have (say) an i5 with built-in graphics, is that used instead of a graphics card or does it complement it, help it out, take off some of the load?

your computer will automatically use the discrete card, unless it's a laptop in which case it depends

 

[Shurdus]

Fritz 11, a fine example of a multithreaded game disagrees

Oh I am sorry, when I said games in general I meant those games that people actually heard of.

I do not know Fritz 11, but I would assume that unless it is a game very heavy on the processor, there is a point when adding more cores does nothing, because at one point the CPU is not the bottleneck holding the performance back.

 

[Shurdus]

Question - if you have (say) an i5 with built-in graphics, is that used instead of a graphics card or does it complement it, help it out, take off some of the load?

On an i5 I am not too sure. The stock answer is that the computer uses the dedicated card over the onboard one. Some of the i-series intel processors actually use the onboard video and the dedicated videocard. So some of the intel processors can indeed use both the onboard card and the dedicated card, but I am unsure which processors do that. I will look into that, hold on.

Edit: Ok I looked into it, but I could not find it. I know for a fact that it is possible to have a system with a dedicated video card and on-board video, and to have these two components interact to safe power and make sure the system heats up a bit less. I am unsure if this is a motherboard of a CPU feature though. Better ask at your store, or send someone from an online store an email.

 

[V. Soma]

On an i5 I am not too sure. The stock answer is that the computer uses the dedicated card over the onboard one. Some of the i-series intel processors actually use the onboard video and the dedicated videocard. So some of the intel processors can indeed use both the onboard card and the dedicated card, but I am unsure which processors do that. I will look into that, hold on.

Edit: Ok I looked into it, but I could not find it. I know for a fact that it is possible to have a system with a dedicated video card and on-board video, and to have these two components interact to safe power and make sure the system heats up a bit less. I am unsure if this is a motherboard of a CPU feature though. Better ask at your store, or send someone from an online store an email.

I read on the net thet AMD 890 chipset based motherboards can use board built in graphic (HD 42xx) in combo with discrete card,
in hybrid crossfire, up to HD 54xx discrete card.

 

[civ_king]

Oh I am sorry, when I said games in general I meant those games that people actually heard of.

I do not know Fritz 11, but I would assume that unless it is a game very heavy on the processor, there is a point when adding more cores does nothing, because at one point the CPU is not the bottleneck holding the performance back.

Fritz is a Chess game, it will devour GHz like all Chess games

also AMD BE chips overclock well

 

[Shurdus]

Fritz is a Chess game, it will devour GHz like all Chess games

also AMD BE chips overclock well

Ah yes, chess games. That is where that flashy blazing-fast processor really comes in handy. In all earnest, how fast does the AI make it's moves? How does it perform in a 3 core system when compared to a 4 core system? If you can tell me in detail how much that game profits from a fourth core then we may have a decent discussion, but yuou just make a statement and do not back it up.

Also i7's over clock really well too. The stock ones have a lot of headroom, especially the 920 - the 860 has some issues with overclocking with certain mobo chipsets. Overclocking is therefore not really AMD territory and it does not set AMD apart.

 

[Trias]

Ah yes, chess games. That is where that flashy blazing-fast processor really comes in handy. In all earnest, how fast does the AI make it's moves? How does it perform in a 3 core system when compared to a 4 core system? If you can tell me in detail how much that game profits from a fourth core then we may have a decent discussion, but yuou just make a statement and do not back it up.

Unless the programmers of Fritz are complete idiots performance should scale almost linearly with the number of cores. Chess AI, relies heavily on brute force checking of the possible moves. The trees of different scenarios diverge wildly, so are a prime target for parallel processing, since there are no instances where one core has to wait on a task on another core to finish.

Anyway, this benchmark at tom's hardware supports this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Fritz-11,837.html

 

[civ_king]

Ah yes, chess games. That is where that flashy blazing-fast processor really comes in handy. In all earnest, how fast does the AI make it's moves? How does it perform in a 3 core system when compared to a 4 core system? If you can tell me in detail how much that game profits from a fourth core then we may have a decent discussion, but yuou just make a statement and do not back it up.

Also i7's over clock really well too. The stock ones have a lot of headroom, especially the 920 - the 860 has some issues with overclocking with certain mobo chipsets. Overclocking is therefore not really AMD territory and it does not set AMD apart.

Ah, but you can't unlock cores try turning an intel dual core into a quad core, with some AMD's you can, also many tri cores can be changed

 

[Shurdus]

Ah, but you can't unlock cores try turning an intel dual core into a quad core, with some AMD's you can, also many tri cores can be changed

Dunno what that is, so indeed you probably can't on an intel.

Then again the i7 processors support hyperthreading so they can handle 2 threads at once, so they simulate having 8 cores. Overall this is not a boost like having 8 physical cores of course, because having hyperthreading just reduces the idle time of cores. The cores cannot actually calculate things faster, but they are more often busy doing something rather than doing nothing. I would imagine that unlocking cores would do something similar, that is it cuts down idle time. If that is the case, the performance boost from that is probably not that stellar.

Also some AMD processors have unlocked multipliers if I am not mistaken, which is awesome for overclocking. However, to make the most out of the overclocking, you will need a monster of a mobo, sufficient cooling because the stock cooler might not cut it, and if you buy a top AMD processor with an aftermarket cooler and a top mobo you may get performances like the stock i7 get or maybe a bit better... But for those prices you may also get an i7 and overclock that.

All in all I am not denying that AMD has some good things going for it, but I think that saying that an AMD performs the same for less money is a mantra that was true 5 years ago. A reality check quickly tells us that those days are gone.

 

[mjs0]

I was a loyal AMD customer for many years, but recently I have been buying Intel almost exclusively.
The Q6600 was a great chip for overclocking especially the G0 stepping (which is in 2 of my machines) and I have been very happy with the i7 I put in my main devt machine last fall.

The kids still have Athlon 64s at the moment but when I do my next round of upgrades they will get the Q6600s and the home file server (with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+) will be my only AMD.

In fact the only reason I have the AMD in the home server is because I wanted to have the same CPU/Mobo at home as I had used in a build for my Dad in late 2008 (to aid with remote support issues). The deciding factor for using AMD in my Dad's machine was the superior on board graphics AMD had at that time (the 780G chipset with onboard DirectX 10 capable Radeon HD3200) as we didn't need a dedicated card for him.
Hopefully I'll be able to coax it into playing Civ5 next time we go for a long visit.

 

[Trias]

All in all I am not denying that AMD has some good things going for it, but I think that saying that an AMD performs the same for less money is a mantra that was true 5 years ago. A reality check quickly tells us that those days are gone.

Since facts say so much more than unsubstantiated claims, lets check the Tom's hardware's 2009 cpu charts.

Pretty much across the board you will find that for AMD and Intel products that have similar benchmark performances that the price of the AMD product is much lower, often about a factor 2.

As a case in point compare the Phenom II X4 955 and the core 2 quad Q9550. This score very similar in most benchmarks. (It is no accident that their type numbers are similar) The phenom sells for ~170 and the core 2 sells for ~330.

This doesn't even take into account that AMD mainboards are generally cheaper than intel mainboards as well.

 

[Shurdus]

Since facts say so much more than unsubstantiated claims, lets check the Tom's hardware's 2009 cpu charts.

Pretty much across the board you will find that for AMD and Intel products that have similar benchmark performances that the price of the AMD product is much lower, often about a factor 2.

As a case in point compare the Phenom II X4 955 and the core 2 quad Q9550. This score very similar in most benchmarks. (It is no accident that their type numbers are similar) The phenom sells for ~170 and the core 2 sells for ~330.

This doesn't even take into account that AMD mainboards are generally cheaper than intel mainboards as well.

I posted an overall performance chart showing that AMD get's butchered all around when the results from all benchmarks are combined into one index.

The cheapest i7, the 860, happens to not be on the benchmark, but that one costs ~ 260, which is about 30 bucks more expensive than the 965 BE from AMD. They might not compare that bad. The 6 core Thuban processor that is the top AMD processor on the benchmark is actually not that well suited for gaming.

Still I would recommend anyone to look for the best they can buy for their budget. Low to mid range budgets and computers might favor AMD, but intel is very much the king in the higher range.

 

[mjs0]

This page has an interesting set of comparison charts.
Admittedly it is based on one benchmarking approach (passmark) and one price source (NewEgg), but the charts are interesting and reflect the general consensus that the choice between AMD and Intel depends on the performance class you are targeting with your system.

 

[Shurdus]

This page has an interesting set of comparison charts.
Admittedly it is based on one benchmarking approach (passmark) and one price source (NewEgg), but the charts are interesting and reflect the general consensus that the choice between AMD and Intel depends on the performance class you are targeting with your system.

That is not that interesting at all actually, safe for the last chart. Unfortunately non of the charts can help you decide what you need to get.

Some of them are just random nonsense, like the amount of cores offered. What on earth are you to do with that info?

 

[mjs0]

That is not that interesting at all actually, safe for the last chart. Unfortunately non of the charts can help you decide what you need to get.

Some of them are just random nonsense, like the amount of cores offered. What on earth are you to do with that info?

Yeah, I meant the last chart specifically. (I've been practicing reducing the size of my posts because no one seems to read my essays, but I always leave out something important. Ah well...)
You are right that the rest are just random fluff.

 

[fromeast2west]

As others have pointed out, if you want a full comparison you should factor in the cost of the average MB as well. (other components like PS, Case, RAM, HDD, etc. being the same for both platforms)

Looking at boards with similar features, same manufacturer, and there's a huge difference:

AM3: $140: GIGABYTE GA-790XTA-UD4
Intel 1366: $290 : GIGABYTE GA-X58A-UD5

If you're working with a fixed overall budget you can save $180 with the AMD CPU/MB Combo. If you then allocate that to other components (RAM, GPU, SSD), for the same money the AMD system will beat an Intel system.

All the benchmarks you see online keep the other components static, so overall system costs are variable. Even where they do attempt to correct for cost they often focus on the cost of just the CPU they're testing, not the entire system build. (there are exceptions, like Tom's 'builds' that target specific price ranges).

If the cost isn't an issue for you, and benchmark numbers are, an Intel system is tough to beat. For the majority of gamers who are looking for the best experience within a specific budget, AMD is still a better choice.