Intel Core i7-870 vs AMD Phenom II 965BE
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.
The arrival of less expensive socket LGA1156 Intel Core i5 and i7 chips changed that a bit. They are cheaper, but slightly slower than the top level Intel 975XE CPU. The system cost is also about on a par with the AMD top CPU bins. Yet, trying to put together an apples-to-apples comparison is anything but easy. After all, even though they both use dual-channel DDR3 memory, the CPU core speeds and even cache sizes are still different. So, here I tried my best to set up two configurations with as many common components as possible.
The first one, using the Intel Core i7-870, is based on Gigabyte P55 UD6 mainboard, while the other one, for the AMD Phenom II 965BE, uses the Gigabyte MA790FXT UD5 mainboard. Both are the top end models from this vendor for the Intel P55 and AMD 790 chipsets, respectively, so they both have maxed out power and voltage conversion circuitry with the best capacitors, 2-ounce copper layers, optimised memory traces and such.
While the UD6 mainboard uses Intel's P55 chipset, where the PCIe bus hangs off the CPU directly for lower latency GPU access, the UD5 mainboard relies on the AMD 790FX chipset and its 'classic' PCIe attachment off the North Bridge for GPU access. The benefit here is more total PCIe lanes available, of course - full 2 x 16 for the AMD 7909FX chipset versus 1 x 16 or 2 x 8 in the Intel P55 chipset.
Also, both mainboards use twin 2GB modules of optimised memory. Both Kingston DDR3-2000 CL8 and G.skill DDR3-2000 CL9 were used for the tests. The CPU cooler was shared too, the brand new Thermaltake SpinQ VT, a good looking yet fairly large and mostly silent high-end unit which managed to keep both CPUs at less than 45C when idle in the Singapore heat at 4GHz and above.
The graphics card was the current performance favourite, the reference AMD ATI Radeon HD5870 1GB with the Catalyst 9.10 drivers for Windows 7. The Thermaltake 1000W PSU powered the whole contraption in both cases. So, plenty of common stuff there.
What happens when we overclock and tune the machines? The Intel Core i7-870 does 4 GHz fairly easily here with the Turbo Boost still on to give an extra clock step or two, but the AMD Phenom II 965BE is no slouch either, with 4 GHz achieved on air cooling here easily. However, the Intel Core i7-870 needs its HyperThreading multithread feature turned off before it can reach the 4GHz plus Turbo Boost level safely.
The voltages needed to achieve that are a little different too, even though both processors are made in 45 nm process technology. The Intel Core i7-870 needs 1.42 volts to run stable through all the benchmarks, while the Phenom II 965BE needs 1.45 volts for the same, but again, this difference is nothing major.
Since the Intel Core i7-870 has a locked multiplier, I had to set the base clock to 182MHz, a hefty over one=third jump up from the base 133MHz, with the same locked 22x multiplier. With that, I had 4GHz base frequency, and two extra Turbo Boost bins for either 4.18GHz or 4.36GHz net Turbo Boost frequency across all cores when running. In some benchmarks like CineBench, it ran at 4.36GHz, while in others like Sandra, it didn't go above 4.18GHz.
At the same time, I attempted to push forward the memory settings using both G.skill Ripjaws brand new DDR3-2000 CL9 modules (see them inside the mainboard on the above picture) as well as the classic reference, the fast Kingston HyperX DDR3-2000 CL8 series with Elpida chips. How did they fare on each CPU?
On the AMD, the G.skill DIMMs did well up to DDR3-1600 CL8 without any problems at around 1.6V. However, getting anything better above 7-8-7 at that frequency proved not possible even with a 1.65V setting. Nevertheless, knowing these are aimed to be inexpensive DIMMs, it's fair. On the Intel, they did run at DDR3-1800 CL8-8-8 but at 1.66V only.
The Kingston again ran at very low latency, with the AMD Phenom II configuration easily achieving it's lowest latency DRAM setting, the CL 6-6-6-16 at DDR3-1600 dual channel, at just 1.62V. In the case of Intel, it was DDR3-1820 at CL 7-7-7-18 at 1.64V, not bad either. Since we couldn't exactly match the clocks and latencies, this compromise - a 12 per cent faster clock but 15 per cent higher latency - is a close approximation for a fair comparison.
Another point of observation was the GPU. The AMD (ATI) Radeon HD5870 is the fastest single GPU graphics card around right now, and it puts considerable demands on the system CPU, the PCIe bandwidth and latency, as well as on the system memory during operation. It was interesting to see whether the lower PCIe latency in the Intel Core i7-870 versus the more AMD specific optimisations in the AMD 790FX chipset could help either win there.
With all these equal, I ran the following benchmarks: Sandra 2009, CineBench, and 3DMark Vantage in Performance mode.
3Dmark on Intel
3Dmark on AMD
CineBench on Intel and AMD together
As you can see, the i7 still has the advantage in most cases. Here are the overclock setup benchmarks with a couple more results, with the accompanying screenshots:
As well as the memory benchmark
Well, the Intel Core i7-870 has somewhat faster memory system, as you can see - DDR3-1800 at ease versus DDR3-1600 on the AMD Phenom II 965BE, but that's not a showstopper difference at the end. It's more the memory controller efficiency here - for the same DRAM settings, the Intel Core i7-870 seems to outpace the AMD Phenom II 965BE quite a bit, with the difference for the nearly the same dual-channel - DDR3-1600 CL6-6-6-16 on AMD versus DDR3-1800 CL7-7-7-20 on Intel - settings being some 40 per cent in favour of Intel.
Also, while I disabled HyperThreading, which tends to skew the benchmark results a bit, and therefore enabled full core versus core and thread versus thread comparison, I left Turbo Boost on as it is a free feature that, in most cases, a user would keep. If you disable Turbo Boost, you can run the CPU at a somewhat lower voltage - 1.36V in this case - but even with Turbo Boost on, the required voltage is still lower than the voltage required on the Phenom.
System architecture wise, both platforms are well developed - optimised dual-channel DDR3 memory, decent PCIe performance (although Intel P55 needs more PCIe lanes for everything, whether dual graphics at 16X each, or extra PCIe for USB3 and SATA3 controllers), and upgradeability.
However, as mentioned before, AMD really needs an improvement to its basic core performance. Even if I disabled the Turbo Boost completely, the Intel CPU would only be some 3 per cent to 7 per cent slower in the benchmarks shown here. That still wouldn't change the picture significantly, and the picture is that, clock for clock, core for core, with the surrounding systems as similar as possible, and - importantly - price levels as similar as possible, Intel's platform is still ahead.
Of course, with the right price coupled with some power usage reductions, the AMD Phenom II is still more than good enough for most desktop applications, but price alone should not be the only argument to use.
So, the AMD Phenom II is on its own a great CPU nevertheless and, even if AMD ends up late with the Bulldozer next generation, there is still room for AMD to optimise performance rather than just fight on the price front. One approach could be for AMD to move the six-core Istanbul die into the Phenom II socket and let you have six cores.
In my mind, that's not the right choice as the clock speed would invariably suffer and frankly, there is not that much desktop software that can use six cores. However, adding more L3 cache while lowering its latency and tuning up the cores to get another 10 per cent or more of per-clock performance could be a good interim solution. Remember, Intel's six core Westmere-based Gulftown high-end CPU for workstations and desktops is less then six months away, and is most likely held back simply because Intel has no competition in that space. A year from now, the first Intel Sandy Bridge cores with further speedups like twice the floating-point unit throughput are expected, so the least we can hope for is that AMD's Bulldozer comes out a little earlier. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
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
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
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
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??
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?
great, another balloon has figured out that intel beats amd in synthetics.
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
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?. :)
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.
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.
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.
Couldn't agree more with 'flippin_waffles'. For a completly unbiased, proper review. I like to check out 'lost circuits'
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.
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
Even better, if you live near a Micro Center, you can get a i5 750 for $150.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0317379
I was really expecting a through review from the Author, but it seems that's an impossible task for these "so-called" journalists nowadays.
1) It's a FACT that Cinebench, and SANDRA are intel-optimized benchmarks made on intel compilers AND optimized for intel's SSE4 which AMD still don't support.
2) There are far more "real world" testing than these. Why the author didn't use mix testing like scientific apps, cryptography, "GAMING", H264 encoding, and more apps.
3) Saying that "processor X" sucks or is worse than "processor Y" just because of 3 biased benchmarks is plain foolishness at its best. A real computer enthusiast does more than run super pi, Cinebench or 3DMark the whole day.
Get your facts straight and please do some real testing the next time. That's the least you could do for your readers.
Plenty of testing out there that will show that the i7/i5 is ahead of PII in price/power/performance. Google is your friend, here is just one of them....
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641
Lmao.....minus the memory costs it's a 860$ 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.
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!!!!
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 .
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
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.
Seriously, Sandra and 3dmark do not a review make.
Include some non-synthetic benchmarks in the future please.
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
Whole World In Crysis..
so who is gone mad for Intel ?
AMD is the right choice
World Move On AMD since AMD64
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.
"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.
Inq...think Bang for the Buck...and you will not write such crappy article.
AMD BETTER IN HIGH END + GAMING WITH ITS PHENOM 'S
AMD BETTER IN HOME/BUSSINES/HDMI/ WITH ITS ATHLON'S
AMD BETTER IN HIGH END MAINFRAME/SERVERS WITH ITS OPTERON'S
AMD BETTER IN HIGH END GPU'S 4 GAMES/HDMI/MULTI VIEW/ WITH ITS ATI RADEON'S
AMD THE SMARTER CHOICE
GO 4 IT
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.
looks like you need to be told how to suck an egg after reading the comments
AMD still have it right
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.
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
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.
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.