Explanation of Sempron, FX, Phenom and Athlon.

[deadaccount69]

So... how do these families compare, where do they fit. I know that Intel CPUs are pretty much:

• Celeron: Basic pc usage, web browsing, email.
• Pentium: HD video viewing, casual gaming.
• Core i3: Basic photo editing, low resolution basic video editing, mid range gaming.
• Core i5: Top of the line gaming, high end photo editing.
• Core i7: Workstation use, high end video editing.
• Core i7 Extreme edition: Totally overkill performance, for the ultimate unmatched performance no integrated GPU.
• Xeon: Server grade CPU designed for longevity, cool operation, no integrated GPU.

 

What are the AMD correlations(think that's the right word?) of this lineup?

[flibberdipper]

Sempron is like the Celeron/Pentium.

Athlon is like the Pentium/Core i3.

Phenom is like the Core i3/Core i5.

FX is like the Core i5/Core i7.

 

And Opterons are like the Xeons, since they are server grade CPUs, after all.

[The Great Sayain Man]

Sempron is like the Celeron/Pentium.

Athlon is like the Pentium/Core i3.

Phenom is like the Core i3/Core i5.

FX is like the Core i5/Core i7/Core i7 EE.

You can't compare an FX Cpu to an I7 EE (a normal I7 kicks ass on the FX 8350)

[Prince32780]

^

AMD deoesn't have anything at the level of the 6-core intels

But Opeterons are like Xeons - server grade

[deadaccount69]

Wouldn't it be more like:

 

• Sempron: Celeron
• Athlon: Pentium
• Phenom: i3
• FX: i5

I say this because of the AMD to Intel performance ratio. Isn't this more accurate?

[flibberdipper]

You can't compare an FX Cpu to an I7 EE (a normal I7 kicks ass on the FX 8350)

OK. I'm still used to my P4 EE...

 

I'm only almost 15, after all. I can only know so much.

[Sarcasm]

You're way off on the Intel part. i5s are mid-range, i7s are high end gaming. The i3s are more for office use, or light gaming.

[The Great Sayain Man]

OK. I'm still used to my P4 EE...

Why a  ? And why are you useing a Pentium?

[deadaccount69]

Ok. Thanks for the help. Also, I just wanted to ask: is Intel still making new Core 2 Duo/Quad chips and if so, where do they fit into the Intel lineup?

[Guest]

You're way off on the Intel part. i5s are mid-range, i7s are high end gaming. The i3s are more for office use, or light gaming.

There barely a difference between i5 and i7 performance in games

[flibberdipper]

Ok. Thanks for the help. Also, I just wanted to ask: is Intel still making new Core 2 Duo/Quad chips and if so, where do they fit into the Intel lineup?

Nope. They're good chips, don't get me wrong, but don't even compare them. Not a fair comparison.

[needmorewood]

You're way off on the Intel part. i5s are mid-range, i7s are high end gaming. The i3s are more for office use, or light gaming.

still dont think i7's perform that much better than i5's in gaming. would only go i7 if there was more that just gaming (ie. video editing/rendering or at least streaming while gaming)

[needmorewood]

Ok. Thanks for the help. Also, I just wanted to ask: is Intel still making new Core 2 Duo/Quad chips and if so, where do they fit into the Intel lineup?

compared to intels new lineup they are almost garbage

[deadaccount69]

You're way off on the Intel part. i5s are mid-range, i7s are high end gaming.

Umm since when does i7 give any sort of tangeable gaming difference? Read this: http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?page=0&itemid=1061 you seriously want to tell me that 1 extra fps(or in some rare cases, 5 fps) is any sort of tangeable difference? If anything, the i5 has an advantage as it runs cooler.

[Jack.EXE]

There barely a difference between i5 and i7 performance in games

^This.

 

 

(Cant find the benchmarks, but I remember the numbers) 

 

(In Battlefield 3 Ultra)

 

i7 3770K + 7970 got 55 average FPS

 

i5 3570K + 7970 got 54 average FPS

 

FX 8150 + 7970 Got 54 average FPS

 

FX 6200 + 7970 Got 53 average FPS

[Sarcasm]

There barely a difference between i5 and i7 performance in games

That depends on the game.

[deadaccount69]

Nope. They're good chips, don't get me wrong, but don't even compare them. Not a fair comparison.

So... they're pretty much just outdated and don't really fit into the lineup at all?

[Jack.EXE]

So... they're pretty much just outdated and don't really fit into the lineup at all?

 

the latest Core 2 Quad MAYBE could compare to an athlon x4 740.

[flibberdipper]

So... they're pretty much just outdated and don't really fit into the lineup at all?

Yep. Before the i7 920, and that was 4? generations ago. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[YellowDragon]

You can't compare an FX Cpu to an I7 EE (a normal I7 kicks ass on the FX 8350)

 

The socket 2011 chips are not really I7 consumer parts, if you really want to split hairs the socket 2011 chips are the binned own leftovers of the Xeon chips. It technically is a server chip thats marketed as a standard desktop processor.

[The Great Sayain Man]

OK. I'm still used to my P4 EE...

 

I'm only almost 15, after all. I can only know so much.

I'm 15...

[deadaccount69]

ok. I have been told that the i3 is basically the replacement in the lineup for the core 2 duo and the i5 replaced the i5. Does this pretty much sum it up?

[flibberdipper]

the latest Core 2 Quad MAYBE could compare to an athlon x4 740.

Heres what I got.

 

Core 2 Quad Q6800 - 3500 CPUMarks

Athlon X4 740           - 3974 CPUMarks

Core i5 760              - 3868 CPUMarks

[flibberdipper]

I'm 15...

But.... I'm tired.

[Jack.EXE]

Heres what I got.

 

Core 2 Quad Q6800 - 3500 CPUMarks

Athlon X4 740           - 3974 CPUMarks

Core i5 760              - 3868 CPUMarks

 

Seems about right.