AMD use to be my platform of choice, but after three years with an Athlon 64X2, I've switched back to Intel. AMD use to win on price with close enough performance, but the numbers don't lie. And Intel with SLI clearly kills Phenom with Crossfire. Who needs six cores? I am a hard core gamer and nothing I play requires six cores.

Look, just go here
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X6+1090T
Further investigating shows that PASSMARK agrees that the AMD is the KING of value all across the board. WHY NOT pit the Phenom II 1090 against the iNtel offering. Oh, by the way the results on Passmark's cpubenchmarks.net above shows the 1090t wins 6076 vs 5852. Difference in cost? The AMD is -$10 cheaper. Get that -$10. Faster cpu. AND in another chart the AMD offerings are 3 out of 4 in performance vs value. WHAT THIS MEANS. VARS like me can put GORILLA cpus in cusomers homes/offices. Increase ram/hd..Save $$

I realy enjoy reading INQ's hardware review, they are short and instructive.
But I have to say that you will never be able to compare apples to apples without using a real compiler ( remind FTC action against Intel Optimizing Compilers for intel-only CPU's, slowing down the other manufacturers CPU !!! ).

So what about heavy Linux application running the same binary ?

Thanks for this one of a kind comparison. I couldn't find anywhere else this type of a review. I own a system running on2.5ghz Phenom, and since I'm running CPU VST plugins in my music studio, I've experienced all kinds of issues related to limited available processing power (try running multiple convolution reverbs at 128ms latency or lesss). Bottom line for me is NOT THE PRICE, but the ability for my tool (the computer) to perform the task. And unfortunately, as much as I'd like to replace my Phenom with a top of the line Phenom II that will fit in my AM2 socket, I need a significant performance jump which, at the moment, I simply cannot get with AMD - even though I love the brand.

Actually the author of this benchmarking review is right on target. For all you geeks out their that blasted the review need to go back and read the article one more time.

FORGET EVERYTHING ABOUT PRICE

What he is doing here is exactly what I was looking for, for 2 months and here it is January 26th, 2010 now. The emphasis is placed on what exactly can these Motherboards, CPU, & Ram do when compared to each other. He did mention and take into consideration everything and explained it to us readers very well.

We are not looking here at just Bang For the Buck, but we are also looking here at PERFORMANCE. Again, Forget about price.

Here is another review with similar results with a Twist. The benchmarks included what we users and consumers use our computer for. Gaming, Compression, Video Encoding, Video Conversion, Archiving, oh and did I mention gaming? Well in short Gaming ends up being about the same. But this review will blow you mind and really surprise you with the results. And it totally backs up this benchmark review here.

Here is the other similar and well detailed Benchmark Review:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=360&Itemid=69

Really the questions that we all ask ourselves is this:

1.) How long to I want to wait for my video to be converted from *.vob to avi and vise versa?

2.) How many minutes will this save me from compressing a 4 gig archive or archiving?

3.) Will QuickPAR create and check my Archives faster? how much Faster?

4.) How much am I willing to pay for faster speeds?

and finally

5.) How much am I willing to sacrifice on my new system to crawl like a snail?

Hours,minutes,seconds & Nanoseconds which of these carry the most importance.

Lets ask ourselves, what do 95% of the users out there use their Computers for?

1. Surf
2. Game
3. Movies
4. Downloads
5. Porn ;p

Right. So based on price and performance, it wouldn't take and idiot to figure out that intel is ripping everyone off with perceived benchmarks.

AMD for upgrading
AMD for price
AMD for performance
AMD for thw win.

So if you guys aren't cheap as could be and u had a decent amount of money to spend on a desktop. would the i7-860 be better than the amd phenom 2 820??? me n my friend have both these were wondering whos is better... im not gonna tell u which one i have :P

You can't under estimate AMD's power because remember, the GPU used in the Core i7 system is AMD in nature. Without this, GPU doesn't look great for benchmarks.

Next time try to use Onboard Intel Graphics Media for intel while HDRadeon onboard GPUs for AMD.

AMD builds the fab2 to produce the future 22nm GPUs and CPUs.

Intel has no news for building new fabs.*(Maybe tomorrow)

If I'm wrong.
Just comment later.

AMD smarter choice.
Intel leap ahead.

looks like you need to be told how to suck an egg after reading the comments
AMD still have it right

Like, when you take this Intel and kill half the threads on it.... Hm... like taking a dualsocket board and remove one cpu and start benching with synthetic sandra.

Nah, its hard to take this at face vale, sorry.

I would really like to advice different benchmarks, like BarsWF, x264. Yeah, they don't have the pretty UI screens but produce real-world performance in the range of cryptography and video encoding.

Sandra & 3DMark are soo cheated, vendor optimised, soo 1865. Get over 'em.

Inq...think Bang for the Buck...and you will not write such crappy article.

"COMPARING INTEL AND AMD at the high end can be difficult. A benchmark might show that an Intel Core i7-975XE obliterates an AMD Phenom top offering, but ignore the fact that the Phenom CPU might cost only one-third of the Intel CPU. Even when you add in all the other system components, the AMD system might cost 30 per cent less than the Intel system for 25 per cent lower performance."

Even with a Corei7 in your back pocket, all but the simplest of math (and even that) seems to be lost on the author. How does a P2-965 cost a 3rd of a i7-975XE? What grade of elementary school did you drop out in. How about a 5th or a 6th when you calculate tax in. When the stupidness is so thick after the first paragraph, where is the hope?
None apparently if ones good senses tricked him in reading further. Now we are comparing a 870 vs. a P2-965, with some slanted benchmarks. How about comparing real gaming BM's and you take the extra $$ spent on the 870 and buy more GFX for the 965 system and see how it works out.
Yes AMD needs a push for heavy optimized Intel Video/3D rendering apps, mostly from the standpoint of lazy or paid-off developers, but in the majority of "enthusiast users", they are over paying Intel for their gaming machines.

There are many different ways to make bad comparisons in this business, and this article makes a lot of them. Out of the many previously mentioned by others who commented, I would like to mention my favorite.

Why does everyone insist on comparing the Phenom 2 965 vs a core i7/i5 processor like the 920 or 750. The two factors that are most important for a processor are first price, and second performance. Based on this the 965 is one of the worst AMD processors, while the Intel i7 920 is one of Intel's best. A much better choice for an AMD processor would be the 945, or the 620.

By looking at the Intel 920, and AMD 945 and 620, you would come to the conclusion that the decision to choose AMD or Intel depends on the price range. With each of the two competitors holding superiority over different price ranges.

Whole World In Crysis..

so who is gone mad for Intel ?

AMD is the right choice

World Move On AMD since AMD64

INQ, you seriously need to stop writing these stupid benchmark articles.

As has already been stated above numerous times, i7 870 costs a lot more than PII965. You could have used i5 750. Not that the result would be much different, Intel would still beat AMD. But

Seriously, Sandra and 3dmark do not a review make.

Include some non-synthetic benchmarks in the future please.

Benchmark Reviews just posted its review of the new Phenom II 965BE.

Link:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=63

The new Phenom is compared to its older sibling as well as a Core i5-750 at the same price point.

The Intel CPU is better in CAD/CAM while AMD is better at most other applications.

The Phenom is also easily clockable to 4.2GHz when using a decent cooler.

By sheer coincidence I have been able to make some real*8 floating point comparisons between the three less glamorous version of the chips mentioned above, and my results with real research codes (direct simulation of turbulence using spectral methods that have run on Crays, Silicon Graphics and clusters of the defunct alpha chips) and the results are quite different.

AMD 955BE comes significantly on top with the i7-860 being a disappointment. Wattage for the AMD is a minus.

You do need to know Greek to read the table in my initial post in:

http://www.adslgr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337859

You have to be kidding me? If this is about saving a few bucks then you should of used the i5-750, it outperforms and cost less then the Phernom 965BE. The only truly competitive chip that Amd currently has is the Phenom 620 .

I always feel like "bang for your buck" is the most important thing "most" consumers look for. Built a computer for the wife, did I choose Intel? Of course not! It does not provide the bang!

How about an AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz Socket AM3 80W Dual-Core Processor that will run as a quad @3.5ghz on stock voltages and a stock cooler! For $102! What does Intel have to match that? Nothing!

How about a GIGABYTE GA-MA785GM-US2H AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 785G motherboard with an HD4200 graphics core onboard, and HDMI output! For $80! What does intel have that will match that? Nothing! Try watching HI-DEF on an intel graphics core! LOL

So for less than $200, I have a 3.5ghz Quad, that displays true HI-DEF on an HDMI output! Intel, eat your heart out!!!!

Lmao.....minus the memory costs it's a 860$ Intel system vs a 400$ AMD system.

And the AMD is only 1k difference in 3dmark.

Even if you are a power freak the clear choice is AMD, since you can put that savings toward a 6 core later and just plug it in. or hell get another 5870 and crossfire it for the difference.

With DX11 having more GPU is more important than CPU, Especially as games start to use the cards as processors.

Plenty of testing out there that will show that the i7/i5 is ahead of PII in price/power/performance. Google is your friend, here is just one of them....

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641

I was really expecting a through review from the Author, but it seems that's an impossible task for these "so-called" journalists nowadays.

1) It's a FACT that Cinebench, and SANDRA are intel-optimized benchmarks made on intel compilers AND optimized for intel's SSE4 which AMD still don't support.

2) There are far more "real world" testing than these. Why the author didn't use mix testing like scientific apps, cryptography, "GAMING", H264 encoding, and more apps.

3) Saying that "processor X" sucks or is worse than "processor Y" just because of 3 biased benchmarks is plain foolishness at its best. A real computer enthusiast does more than run super pi, Cinebench or 3DMark the whole day.

Get your facts straight and please do some real testing the next time. That's the least you could do for your readers.

Even better, if you live near a Micro Center, you can get a i5 750 for $150.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0317379

No need for an i7-870 when an i5-750 is on average faster, uses less power, and OCs better. Plus it cost the same as an PII 965. $199

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641

Interesting review.... to say the least

Unless it was done with Satyre in mind, with a big helping of irony.

With that in mind, it takes Intel alot more dollars to just beat AMD. Money that would be better spent on an additional graphics card.

Couldn't agree more with 'flippin_waffles'. For a completly unbiased, proper review. I like to check out 'lost circuits'

Please do us INQ readers a favor and just report news!

Leave the benchmarking to sites that know how to do "Real World Usage" testing and compare systems based on similar price points.

Firstly let me say I agree with flippin_waffles and the general population here that I'm sick and tired of people writing articles of a review that they have no clue what it is they haved reviewed !!!
Did you ( Nebojsa Novakovic ) perform the test your self ? or did you just let someone else do it and then you wrote about it.
Besides like others here have said, how can you compare the 965 to the 870 ?
Good god has the price of the 965 gone up ?

Here is the price in Canada from a local PC shop .

Intel Core i7 870 Quad-Core Socket LGA1156, 2.93Ghz, 8MB L3 Cache, 45nm (Retail Boxed) (BX80605I7870) $632.99

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition (140W) Quad Core Socket AM3 , 3.4GHz, 8Mb Cache, 1800MHz HT, 45nm (HDZ965FBGIBOX)

$234.99 after $10.00 instant rebate

So I870=$632.99 vs Phenom II X4 965BE=$234.99

Difference of...$398
$ 398 !!! and that is just for the 870 CPU alone , im not even adding the cost difference of the Motherboard here.
So tell me why should i pay $398 more ? I dont know about you guys but for me that I like to game , id rather put that $398 into a 2nd Video Card either CrossFire or SLI and get much more for the money or BANG for the Buck then 1 video Card System.

Like Flippin Waffles said,, review systems with apps and or software that we USE not some benchmark crap, and also try show the TOTAL Price of each system so everyone else can see what the TRUE cost of your setup is.

If your going to go all out, why dont you use multiply graphics cards. The i7 870 is very good with one graphics card with integrated PCIe, but when it has multiple cards it starts to bottle neck. AMD clearly is the better opt for a cheaper system with great performance.

You wrote a good review but i have to agree with lippin_waffles on the comparability. I7 870 isnt comparible with phenom 965 because of the price diffrence these platforms start at. most people dont max it out like this with the most expansive boards etc. Next time write it up against a more simular priced cpu such as i5 750 and make sure you use the phenom 965BE with the C3 stepping as well as the maximum 125watt tdp. Dont use a €200 motherboard and faster memory for intel because a normal buyer isnt going for that. Rather lay the limit around €100-120 at most for the board and the memory either 1600 mhz or 1333 mhz. then benchmark both with and without there powersaving as well as - turbo mode which i consider cheating because it overclocks. You could make simular profiles with AMDs overdrive if you want a turbo mode alternative. But now to get to the point i just want to see plain benchmarks with no cheats magic fingers tricks or flying puppies. just benchmark both cpus with and without there cheating abilities so people can see the diffrence. You could include a i7 870 ofcourse to show the diffrence between the very high-end and the more affordable high-end but it should not be cpus which compete against eachoter. because then you could bring up a multi socket istanbul server as well and benchmark it against a intel celeron system then say wow istanbul is ow so great. not really comparible isnt it?. :)

I'm still most likely to go for an AMD system. I'm not a gamer, heck I could get away with a dual core CPU (I currently have a Core 2 Duo 2GHz CPU in my noteboook, a Pentium Dual Core E2160 @ about 3GHz in the wife's PC and an Athlon X2 3800+ in the media centre PC).

The reason I'm looking at AMD is because I can get a reasonably priced AM2+ system, drop in an Athlon II X4 (or Phenom II X3 maybe) with a couple of gigs of ram and then when the prices come down a little I could upgrade to AM3. Heck, I might even just skip AM2+ now and go straight to AM3. At least I know for the next couple of years I'm going to have a reasonable upgrade route.

Rob

great, another balloon has figured out that intel beats amd in synthetics.

Come'on man... what are u smoke'n here? The 870 is what $570 bucks the 965 is $195. I'm sorry but only a fool would call this as similar as possible, now i5 @ $199... that's similar but is the STABLE 4.0GHz that realistic?

Oh how about this question... Does the 965 @ near 4.0Ghz have enough power to max out 2x 16x PCIe? Everyone knows clock for clock the Intel is faster, but if you stick 2x 5850 or 2x 5870 in there, does the platform limit performance?

Good article, although i'm pretty sure you can put together a much cheaper AMD rig than what you have in your review. I'm not sure why reviewers focus so much on trying to make the platforms as similarily priced as possible. The objective, to benefit the consumer and not the sponsor. I'm not sure how you managed to price AMD's system the same as Intel's when the 965 is clearly so much cheaper. Seems like you've gone out of your way to make the AMD system cost more than anyone in their right mind would do.

Also, near the end you mentioned that you don't think a 6 core cpu makes much sense compaired to a higher clocked 4 core cpu since the majority of desktop applications aren't multithreaded. Well here's a little revelation; look at your own bloody review.... did you have an epiphany yet? Well you should, because you, along with any other reviewer out there, don't use A MAJORITY OF DESKTOP APPLICATIONS in your reviews! You all use predefined benchmarks, mostly optimized and sponsored by and for intel. What do you expect consumers to be besides completely confused?? For christ sake it's only until very recently until reviewers dropped SuperPi, a legacy benchmark that has been outdated for a bloody decade. Then again, maybe that is all part of the big plan? BTW, how do you feel about intel's upcomming 6 core cpu? Going to have a sudden change of heart?? ;)

So it's you, along with every other reviewer out there that is responsible for the confusion of regular consumers. But if it is the enthusiast community you are reviewing for, then you might as well close up shop, because all we need is 5 review sites at the most to see what there is to see. God you'd think you guys would clue in after year on year of the same old tired practices. It's killing the online community where it's becomming tedious, boring and menotinous. How about a little innovation and honesty fokes??

economical and the optimal solution what general people expects.

delevering it is good than keeping the high perfomance processor off for common man by intel

AMD IS STILL BETTER
low prices + mindblowing performance
u can change ur flavours like in months with new hot affordable products ..
and what about intel
much pricess no upgrade solutions .for years
AMD FOREVER

A nice balanced take, but the truth is even the 860 or 750 overclocked offers sheer ownage of the AMD part, with slower memory.

its very difficult to look past a 750 with a good board because literally it wipes the floor with the 965BE across the board without much of an overclock needed at all, and the 965 doesnt really stretch further beyond its stock clocks.

100 pound board plus 140 pound intel processor is able to dismiss anything AMD have on the market currently, and probably for six months. Thats the ugly truth for AMD