Member Avatar for mah300274

I never liked Intel compared to AMD but lately I have used a few intel processors in laptops (older ones). The speed might be like 1.8GHz but it compares to like 2._GHz to amd cpu's...

I want to build my own ultimate computer. I was going to use the AMD 1100T processor but was looking and found the Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz, obviosly it is .1GHz quicker but it is only $100 more instead of the usally $1000 processor by intel. It is socket 1155 so not vary common but seems worth it.

I compared at this site http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K+%40+3.40GHz, and it looks like it is twice as better...

Why? I am assuming it is the hyper-threading, becuase it has a rank of twice as much.....

What do you think?

  • 4 Contributors
  • 5 Replies
  • 293 Views
  • 3 Days Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by jaydeee

Dani AI

Generated

This thread is a good snapshot of the old “more physical cores vs. faster cores with hyper‑threading” argument. laid out a mixed workload (simultaneous disc burns, multiple encodes, browsing and gaming). and raised hyper‑threading and core counts—those are the right levers to think about, but they need a little unpacking.

Hyper‑Threading (Intel’s SMT) exposes two logical threads per physical core to increase CPU throughput on threaded code by using idle execution resources more effectively; it helps responsiveness and background multitasking but does not turn one core into two full cores. (intel.com)

The practical result in 2011 was that Intel’s Sandy Bridge chips combined higher per‑core IPC and HT, while AMD’s Phenom II X6 parts offered more physical cores at attractive prices. Benchmarks and reviews from that era show Sandy Bridge often winning on mixed and even some heavily threaded workloads thanks to its per‑thread performance and features like Intel’s Quick Sync hardware encoding, while the six‑core AMDs could pull ahead on massively parallel CPU‑bound jobs where every physical core counted. (intel.com)

Actionable takeaway for the workload described: if the priority is many concurrent CPU‑heavy encodes running at once, more physical cores (the X6 approach) scales better. If gaming plus background tasks and fast single‑threaded responsiveness matter, the Sandy Bridge design with HT and Quick Sync is the stronger balance. Also factor in motherboard I/O (lots of SATA/USB channels for multiple burners), sufficient RAM, and a stout PSU—those system-level choices often matter more than a small delta in CPU benchmarks. (anandtech.com)

is correct that any multicore chip will multitask; the nuance is how your specific mix of tasks maps to physical cores vs. logical threads and to platform I/O/features. ’s preference for Intel reflects that real‑world balance for mixed gaming/encoding workloads.

Recommended Answers

All 5 Replies

Member Avatar for BlackFetus

..any processors will do as long as it has great hyper threading and big cache..Intel and AMD are great processors manufacturers..In terms of budgets, AMD ranks first while Intel ranks second..In gaming & multitasking, Intel and AMD does not have a big gap to each other..AMD is good for gaming while Intel is best for multitasking..i hope it helps!..^_^..

Member Avatar for crunchie

..any processors will do as long as it has great hyper threading

Then it has to be Intel, as AMD do not have Hyper-Threading

Member Avatar for mah300274

Since I am going to be burning several disks at a time while encoding others, while on the internet, while playing games and etc at once I should get intel? Because it is nice for multi-tasking??

Member Avatar for crunchie

Any multi-cored processor can do multi-tasking. My AMD processor has 6 cores and does so quite well :).

Member Avatar for jaydeee

I also like AMD however considering today's model, its Intel I like.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.