# AMD Phenom II  VS.  Intel Core i5



## jonathanx54

I am curious as to which one is better and by how much.  I can't decide whether to go with the Intel or the AMD for my gaming build.

Intel: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5210397&CatId=4729

AMD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103680

I heard the Intel would be better for me, but I don't know.


----------



## funkysnair

the intel hands down....

there arnt many phenom II's that can compete with the i5 or i7 range and the one you linked is in a little bit of a lower league!

why are you compairing 2 processors that are in different price brackets?


----------



## Jamin43

Core i5 - unless you want SLI

Here's a post from the wayback time machine - 9/8/09

http://www.computerforum.com/159301-core-i5-i7-gaming-benchmarks-crysis-far-cry-2-left-4-dead.html


----------



## Twist86

Yeah sadly as much as I love AMD unless your not looking for high-end performance then Intel is better.

I personally hope the next batch of AMD chips slaughter Intels next batch though before I upgrade.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

The Phenom II 955 processor is close to the Intel i5 in processing power.  But it is only $10 less the Intel i5.  The Intel i5 processor is a better deal presently.


----------



## bomberboysk

2048Megabytes said:


> The Phenom II 955 processor is close to the Intel i5 in processing power.  But it is only $10 less the Intel i5.  The Intel i5 processor is a better deal presently.


I wouldnt say close...as the nehalem architecture has decently better performance clock for clock. Plus once you put overclocking into the mixture...i5 really becomes a great performer. The Phenom II's are more comparable to the core 2 quads.


----------



## 2048Megabytes

bomberboysk said:


> I wouldnt say close...as the Nehalem architecture has decently better performance clock for clock. Plus once you put overclocking into the mixture . . . i5 really becomes a great performer. The Phenom IIs are more comparable to the Core 2 Quads.



So in percent what is your opinion as to how much more processing power the Intel i5 has over the Phenom II 955 processor?

Also, do you think the Phenom II 720 is about equal with the Phenom 9650 processor?


----------



## Fatback

2048Megabytes said:


> So in percent what is your opinion as to how much more processing power the Intel i5 has over the Phenom II 955 processor?
> 
> Also, do you think the Phenom II 720 is about equal with the Phenom 9650 processor?



I would say the i5 is 25% better then the 955.

The 720 is no where near the 9650 the 720 is probably a good 40% better.

That is just a guess I don't know a huge amount about the i5 so it is hard for me to put an number on it.


----------



## jonathanx54

Isn't the *AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core Processor* faster than the *INTEL Core i5-750 Lynnfield* without overclocking?

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4588101&csid=ITD&body=MAIN#detailspecs

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215


----------



## 2048Megabytes

jonathanx54 said:


> Isn't the *AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core Processor* faster than the *INTEL Core i5-750 Lynnfield* without overclocking?



No the Intel i5 Quad-Core has more processing power Phenom II 955 Quad-Core processor.  According to what was just stated above the Intel i5 has around 25 percent more processing power.


----------



## 87dtna

The Phenom II beats core 2 quads in most benchmarks.  How are you guys figuring this 25% better?  Everything the I7 has better than the PII the I5 doesn't have.  It doesn't have hyper threading, and it doesn't have triple channel memory, and it's still 45nm.

Atleast 95% of people will not need the power a Phenom II quad offers, it's overkill.  The I5 is too new, they are still working out the bugs like with the SLI/xfire issues.  Either go all out I7, or stick with AMD.


----------



## Bodaggit23

Might want to check this out.

http://www.computerforum.com/159301...crysis-far-cry-2-left-4-dead.html#post1316558

Source:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/1


----------



## newgunner

I would take the i5 750 over the P2 in a heartbeat. Especially since i can get it at $159.99.


----------



## jonathanx54

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core has unclocked multiplier, but core i5 doens't, right?   

  Doesn't that mean that the AMD would be capable of running faster?


----------



## 87dtna

Bodaggit23 said:


> Might want to check this out.
> 
> http://www.computerforum.com/159301...crysis-far-cry-2-left-4-dead.html#post1316558



Check out heavy multitasking benchmarks, the 750 falls short because of the said reasons of no hyperthreading and dual channel memory compared to the I7.

Seems like the Phenom II is outclassing the 750 just about everywhere in these results-

http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=3

And check out the gaming results, the 965be beats out even the I7's with the gtx275.


----------



## 87dtna

jonathanx54 said:


> AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Quad Core has unclocked multiplier, but core i5 doens't, right?
> 
> Doesn't that mean that the AMD would be capable of running faster?



Not necessarily.  It makes overclocking easier, not better.  You will still hit a ceiling of overclock.  Most Phenom II's can't get over the 4.0ghz hump on air cooling.


----------



## jonathanx54

It's hard to tell the difference for me.  

The AMD has unlocked multiplier, and has 6mb cache; The Intel doesn't have unlocked multiplier, but has 8mb cache.  

But the Intel has Turbo Boost Technology so I'm not sure which way to go because they both seem really competitive which each other.


----------



## 87dtna

jonathanx54 said:


> It's hard to tell the difference for me.
> 
> The AMD has unlocked multiplier, and has 6mb cache; The Intel doesn't have unlocked multiplier, but has 8mb cache.
> 
> But the Intel has Turbo Boost Technology so I'm not sure which way to go because they both seem really competitive which each other.



Don't forget Phenom II has 4X512kb of L2 cache allocated to each core VS 4x256kb of the intel's.  This is typically why AMD's are better with gaming.  So really the AMD's only have 1mb less overall cache.   Turbo boost means nothing if you plan to overclock.


----------



## StrangleHold

87dtna said:


> Don't forget Phenom II has 4X512kb of L2 cache allocated to each core VS 4x256kb of the intel's. This is typically why AMD's are better with gaming. So really the AMD's only have 1mb less overall cache. Turbo boost means nothing if you plan to overclock.


 
Plus AMD has twice as much L1 cache too.


----------



## jonathanx54

87dtna said:


> Don't forget Phenom II has 4X512kb of L2 cache allocated to each core VS 4x256kb of the intel's.  This is typically why AMD's are better with gaming.  So really the AMD's only have 1mb less overall cache.   Turbo boost means nothing if you plan to overclock.




How do you know all that? lol.  Do you have a link so I can read that stuff?

Btw if AMD Phenom II has 4x512kb of L2 cache and Intel has 4x256kb, then wouldn't the AMD have 1mb more?  I'm just wondering because I don't know much about CACHE.


----------



## JareeB

Twist86 said:


> Yeah sadly as much as I love AMD unless your not looking for high-end performance then Intel is better.
> 
> I personally hope the next batch of AMD chips slaughter Intels next batch though before I upgrade.



same here


----------



## 2048Megabytes

Cache is also referred as static random access memory (S-RAM). S-RAM is a small amount of memory that is much faster than primary storage RAM.  It speeds overall computer performance by temporarily holding data the processor may use in the near future.  There are three levels of cache.  Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 (abbreviated L1, L2, and L3).  Level 1 cache is faster than Level 2.  Level 2 cache is faster than Level 3. 

The Phenom II 945 specifications:
http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskt...+SOI&f8=&f9=4000&f10=False&f11=False&f12=True

Phenom II 945
L1 Cache Size: 128 kilobytes x 4
L2 Cache Size: 512 kilobytes x 4
L3 Cache Size: 6144 kilobytes (or 6 megabytes)

The Phenom II Quad-Core processors have twice the Level 1 and Level 2 Cache of the Intel Core i5 but the Core i5 has more Level 3 cache than the Phenom II processors.  So the Core i5 ends up with more cache over the Phenom II processors.


----------



## 87dtna

StrangleHold said:


> Plus AMD has twice as much L1 cache too.



Thats what I thought but I wasn't positive so I didn't post it.



jonathanx54 said:


> How do you know all that? lol.  Do you have a link so I can read that stuff?
> 
> Btw if AMD Phenom II has 4x512kb of L2 cache and Intel has 4x256kb, then wouldn't the AMD have 1mb more?  I'm just wondering because I don't know much about CACHE.



Research.

As another user explained, there's currently 3 levels of Cache, L1 L2 and L3.  The L1 and L2 cache are allocated to each core, the L3 cache is common and shared between all 4 cores.

AMD PII 955-
L1-128kbx4= 512kb 
L2-512kbx4= 2mb
L3-6mb
Grand total-8.5mb

I5 750-
L1-64kbx4-256kb
L2-256kbx4= 1mb
L3- 8mb
Grand total-9.25mb

So the I5 really only have 768kb of cache more than the Phenom II....but IMO the Phenom II is better having more cache allocated to each core.


----------



## maroon1

I don't care about the cache memory

Just look at the benchmarks and you will see that Core i5 has better performance. End of story. It consume significantly less power as well.


----------



## 87dtna

maroon1 said:


> I don't care about the cache memory
> 
> Just look at the benchmarks and you will see that Core i5 has better performance. End of story.



Really?  Did you miss my link?

http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=3

Whats that at the bottom of the list on pretty much every benchmark?  Whoops it's the I5.


----------



## maroon1

87dtna said:


> Really?  Did you miss my link?
> 
> http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=3
> 
> Whats that at the bottom of the list on pretty much every benchmark?  Whoops it's the I5.




These reviews show completely different thing
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-870_9.html#sect0
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/6
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1060/14/

i5 750 had clear edge over Phenom 955 and the more expensive and power-hungry Phenom 965 in gaming

EDIT: And your review only shows 965BE performing better when using GTX 275, but when using HD4890 it didn't perform better than the cheaper i5 750


----------



## Ethan3.14159

I would take a Phenom II just because the P55 platform is so ridiculously limited in terms of expandability. Only 16 lanes of PCI-e? Gimme a break.


----------



## 87dtna

maroon1 said:


> These reviews show completely different thing
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=16
> http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-870_9.html#sect0
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/6
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1060/14/
> 
> i5 750 had clear edge over Phenom 955 and the more expensive and power-hungry Phenom 965 in gaming
> 
> EDIT: And your review only shows 965BE performing better when using GTX 275, but when using HD4890 it didn't perform better than the cheaper i5 750



Yeah we could both give plenty of links showing one is better than the other.  You know what that means?  They are about the same in performance.
A 965 is the same exact thing as a 955, simply take the multiplier on the 955 to 17 and bam you have a 965.

Using the gtx275 the 965 performs about 11-12 FPS better than the I5.  Using the 4890 the I5 performs less than 1 FPS better than the 965 in both tests.  So what.  Like I said, just take the 955 to 17 multiplier and you have a 965.  Same price as the I5 then.

Like I said, go I7 or go AMD.  Those are the best options right now.


----------



## FATALiiTYz

87dtna said:


> The Phenom II beats core 2 quads in most benchmarks.  How are you guys figuring this 25% better?  Everything the I7 has better than the PII the I5 doesn't have.  It doesn't have hyper threading, and it doesn't have triple channel memory, and it's still 45nm.
> 
> Atleast 95% of people will not need the power a Phenom II quad offers, it's overkill.  The I5 is too new, they are still working out the bugs like with the SLI/xfire issues.  Either go all out I7, or stick with AMD.



Triple chnnle is over kill and getting sli or crossfire just hurts your powerbill. In my opinion its a bargain, plus it can Oc to 4.2ghz


----------



## Bodaggit23

Ethan3.14159 said:


> I would take a Phenom II just because the P55 platform is so ridiculously limited in terms of expandability. Only 16 lanes of PCI-e? Gimme a break.



Most people won't care. One good GPU running at 16x is fine. You can still run two cards at 8x/8x. That won't bottleneck most cards anyway.


----------

