is AMD x6 worth it Vs. a Intel i7-860?

i dont think i completely have the income to fully consider something of this price range just yet(although AMD i would at least not need a new motherboard possibly). however, i just wanted to know what if any differences there honestly are, especially for what i want. i currently just have a AMD x2 5200, which has worked fairly well for all gaming, art, and video i wanted. but in interest of making my system a bit better off/so i don't notice really any hiccups as i might in some games or photoshop. as in things like photoshop cs5 using my tablet(especially at higher res images), mark making is a bit delayed at time and may even cause a brief pause in the marks showing up.
with that general gist out of the way, i only know some general knowledge behind all the main parts that define a cpu. figuring that the ghz was the base power, and the number of cores was for greater multitasking. i don;t really know much about the L2/3 cache and such.
i can actually isolate my computer needs down to something like gaming or photoshop, so i am wondering if there is a median for this. as far as needing more core, ghz or what(if they aren't simply complete opposites). i have encountered a lot of problems with lacking knowledge like this in the past for video cards as well. with me isolating the same basic uses/needs.
some reviews said that the AMD x6 was almost on par with the Intel i7-860 and 2 extra cores didnt mean much. while some others also said that some tests weren't using the most compatible(platform i think) items, like a ATI video card over a NVidia one.

i am not sure if there is any general information/instruction anyone can give me, or if any of these aspects i have mentioned are just splitting hairs. i heard the heat sink on the intell was terrible(so that's more money for a new one and a motherboard if i did though), but outside of that some just say that AMD hasn't come that far when a quadcore of similar price can just outperform it.

thanks.

 

I would say a Phenom 6 core is much better then the I7-860

Ignore the reviews sine it's not possible. A 6 core will beat a 4 core hands down if it's used correctly. However many apps are not designed to use 6 cores or even 4 so that's why they said that on the reviews.

The choice is up to you but I'd go with a AMD. You may want to look at Phenom quad core. You can get a quad core for around 150 with AMD as compared to a $300 I7

Intel does perform better on quads compared to AMD but you have to ask yourself. Is the extra money really worth it?

Like the I7 980X is $1000 and AMD's highest end 6 core is only $320 and it's very close to the I7 980X which is a 6 core. You loose a little performance for a $700 savings

 

thoughts like those was were i was at initially. however i wasn't sure if i was planning way ahead of the curve, as far as programs that actually use the available added conditions/core/w/e...
since i am not exactly aware of what the various parts of the cpu do. and if one part is more important to the potential gaming and photoshop etc.
or if they are separate, and therefore all questions are answered by the verdict... AMD is still good and is obviously cheaper/more bang for the buck.

also, i am not sure iif the comment someone made about some tests not being doing with other platform hardware like a ATI card(granted i didn't know there was a specific vid card or anything for that matter, associated with AMD anything). and if that would actually make a difference, if i were to get the AMD x6 in the future, and a new vid card to make the best of it.

anyway, thanks.

 

Do NOT ignore the reviews! At least not those by real review sites. That's the only source of the true facts (and not the marketing fluff) consumers have! Don't put much stock in "user" reviews at sites like Newegg because (1) happy people don't complain, and (2) normal users don't have unbiased viewpoints, testing labs, test equipment, training, experience, or competing products to compare with. But don't put all your faith in one review either. Check out several. Use Google. You will find the AMDs are not quite there - yet. And if all the professional reviews sites say the same thing, there must be something to that, don't you think?

Maximum PC - AMD's $300 6-Core CPU: Too Good to Be True?

Anandtech

TweakTown

So it would seem pretty clear that the professional review sites agree the X6 shows promise for AMD, but AMDs only true consistent advantage is still in price. And that's not a bad thing for it surely keeps the fires burning under Intel. And as long as AMD keeps nipping at the heels of Intel, that can be nothing but good news for us consumers.

 

well i did see that first review of "don't expect a hero ending" were most of their tests lines up with the x6 being just about/a little bit under a i7-860.
so that's why i started a post like this to question it. since i wasn't sure if 2 more cores could even it out more, especially in the mind that i would potentially not need another motherboard. i game, i use photoshop(and sometimes the brushstrokes lag so...) and so on, as well as being an aesthetics whore when it comes to effects in windows 7. so im not sure with some issues like those windows effects all running, photoshop lagging a bit... if the six cores would help. especially as one of the potentially bias reviews said that people ran program atop program and couldn't get it anywhere near its full workload(the x6 that is).
so i figured if it had a pretty good built in OC capabilities, then perhaps turning 3ghz into around 4ghz could cover enough of the difference. i know that both these companies talk about their turbo setting which is nice(also don't know if OC'ing could cause problems with that in general if i used it), but i would wonder how far an idea like that could go. is it a possibility to take some programs or something that don't use all six cores on their own, and at least tell your cpu to spread out the workload to more of the cores manually or something.
forgive me if i speak to general or miss a key blatant aspect of all this,but im sort of on the cusp of general knowledge with all this.

thank you for all the responses, as this gives me a better chance of actually understanding where i stand perhaps by the time i do have the money. at least since im clearly not going to spend a thousand dollars, or even wait till its like 700 or something... it narrows it down.

 

I think it boils down to exactly what is the intended purpose for this machine. Windows itself can use all cores and that is certainly a plus. But as Anandtech, probably one of the most respected review sites puts it, "if you're building a task specific box that will mostly run heavily threaded applications...", then the X6 may be the best match for you. But I think you need to ask yourself, is it cost effective to build a task specific box? Especially if you are looking for superior performance for all your computing tasks?

In your case, if your current motherboard supports the X6, that to me is a huge factor for choosing the X6.

As for overclocking, I'm personally not a fan. I see it as a HUGE marketing gimmick, almost a scam being perpetrated on consumers. Why? Several reasons:

• Engineers do not design in overclocking capabilities for CPUs. They design CPUs to (1) meet design specs, or (2) meet the greatest performance the current state-of-the-art manufacturing technologies and materials will allow.
  
• Marketing weenies "dummy down" specs to (1) allow the creation and marketing of different models with the same design, (2) advertise OC abilities (AKA Markeing "fluff") playing on the egos of OCers who seek bragging rights.
  
• CPU warranties (for both Intel and AMD) do not cover damage due to overclocking)
  
• Motherboard makers (who design in OC features and software) do not cover damages due to overclocking (or heat from it) nor will motherboards makers (or 3rd party cooler makers) replace a CPU that fails due to overclocking.

As a technician, I have seen way to many computer problems caused by wannabe OCers who failed to do their homework (and who did not get any help from the CPU and motherboard makers) and failed to consider the added demands for cooling and power that OCing demands.

 

my current board supports am2+ which i believe is one of the supported types now for that x6. yet just as i struggle here with cpu's, i am not sure if there are elements i should be considering that would be worth a new motherboard as well.
however as it stands, i am not sure if things like photoshop, and games are elements that aren't more strongly supported in a Intel compared to AMD right now. if AMD x6 is still comparable to the equally priced 860, then i may be fine with that.
i am not going to be running those mathematical programs that that site mentioned, but somehow i still figured that more cores would mean more for multitasking. and help keep my aesthetic wants from windows at bay as well as making it so i didn't even feel any delay in photoshop. most signs pointed to the Intel 860 being better for games, but i thought that the AMD x6 was something to go better for being in the middle.

like i said about the one newegg review (bias or no), when i heard some one say that they rand program after program and felt no slowing. if i could look forward to something like that, then i imagine it would be worth it.

if i am missing something about how the cores work together than that might be one of my problems in coming to a conclusion here. as i cant say for certain i know how the cores delegate the workload, and if more cores does indeed mean more multitasking. as it can spread out the work hopefully, or does the lack of many programs utilizing multiple cores leave at least two or more cores idle most of the time.
sorry if im continuing to be dense, but i figured if people created cpu's with 6 cores... then they would have something to regulate their efforts, and the workload. so as to make anything that doesn't control them itself, just as fast because it spaced out the workload.

 

The problem is, compared to what? His last PC might have been an old, single core P4 too. That's the problem with user reviews. Most users don't have comparable products to compare with. Also, with today's graphics oriented world, MUCH depends on the graphics horsepower too. And besides, typically, you are talking differences of milliseconds, not minutes.

 

The age old question, Intel vs. AMD.:-D I buy whatever's less expensive or faster at the time. At this point for me I got an i7930 for $200 @ Microcenter, if you have one nearby and are willing to get a new mobo. Otherwise get the X6, friends that have just built a rig love the 1090T. Also, ATI's GPU's are still ahead in price/performance.

I wouldn't fret about these benchmarks, you'd never notice the real world difference if you loaded up either machine the same way. They are both high end machines and either will serve you well.

 

Good points. But you don't have to go high-end to load up the machines either. There are plenty of decent motherboards that won't break the bank, but still offer fast bus speeds, and enough I/Os to suit just about anybody. And you don't have to buy the most expensive RAM either, just a good size chunk of it - at least 4Gb in my book. And a nice size 7200RPM HD with 32Mb buffer will serve you nicely too.

And if you want to get down to it, if the budget is getting tight, cut back on CPU horsepower and put your money on a better graphics card. In today's graphics oriented world, the more capable the graphics solution, the better the over all performance. And it takes very little CPU horsepower to hand off graphics tasks.

And regardless if AMD or Intel, both make excellent and "reliable" CPUs that will provide years of service. All they ask for in return is a cool, clean environment and plenty of rock-solid power.

 

i think some of the reviews that i mentioned may have been people changing from a x2 to the x6. i just took it as being able to take the workload, the only thing i could have possibly wanted to hear more about is resolutions and using a tablet etc. since obviously if u just start up a program, or just draw some scribbles on a low res picture....it doesn't say anything.
i haven't really cared what brand i was going for, and to be honest, until i started questioning this... i didn't recall what my cpu was, let alone know that there were motherboards that might support only amd or intel cpu's.

i was just searching to describe what i do and use most, and attempt to get an answer if the AMD was comparable enough that it shouldn't matter much. when i heard people saying things like... intel cpu of the same price range outperforms it in most every area, and the two extra cores don't matter...
i started to wonder if i could write it off as easily.

i think in the end, hearing enough information saying that both are even enough. that i wont need a new motherboard if i don't want to, and that the intel 860 supposedly has a poor heat sink... although potentially small issues to resolve, i think i would be fine with the AMD. i don't care who makes it really, i just figured it was good to question what more cores did and if technology was ahead of programing. in what could actually be utilized. since i figured in the least, the technology itself should be able to spread the work over all the cores even if the program didn't say to do it.

 

This site caters to all audiences. Please immediately edit your post to remove the unnecessary and offensive profanity (which, BTW, is against the rules you agreed to when joining).

As far as OEM heat sink fan assemblies, don't believe all that you read. Understand that retail versions of these CPUs are warrantied for 3 years. Also understand the warranty is valid ONLY IF used with the supplied HSF - that is, if you use a 3rd party HSF assembly, you void the warranty. Therefore, neither Intel or AMD are going to supply an inferior HSF with their CPUs if they expect it to adequately cool the CPU for the duration of the warranty period.

 

my apologies for my banter, sadly my usual restrain from such things verbally in a new place/situation...doesnt seem to transition as well in a typing case. unfortunately i didnt see a edit button or anything, only quotting, reply and so on.

i see, well i guess that makes sense as well.
i guess unless something new develops by the time i want to invest in a new cpu i will just go with the AMD.

sry/thanks again.
: /