Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore? 
Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent. 
(Gigabit/Biostar?)


ca

On Feb 11, 11:18=A0am, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
> Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore?
> Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent.
> (Gigabit/Biostar?)
>
> ca

Go with an Intel Core i7 cpu if you want the best SW performance.

Cheers,

Anna

here is a good link for reference...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

...

On Feb 11, 10:18=A0am, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
> Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore?
> Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent.
> (Gigabit/Biostar?)
>
> ca

paul@zxys.com wrote:
> here is a good link for reference...
> 
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
> 
> ..
> 
> On Feb 11, 10:18 am, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
>> Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore?
>> Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent.
>> (Gigabit/Biostar?)
>>
>> ca
> 
I am using SW maybe 8hrs a week, currently. Performance is not anywhere 
as important as stability. (I left behind the bleeding edge years ago.)

Nearly every expert Including SW corp says that Core2Duo will benefit SW 
but NOT Core2Quad, so don't waste the money. Same answer for dual CPU, 
unless you are doing rendering.

ca

paul@zxys.com wrote:
> here is a good link for reference...
> 
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
> 
> ..
> 
> On Feb 11, 10:18 am, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
>> Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore?
>> Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent.
>> (Gigabit/Biostar?)
>>
>> ca
> 
I am using SW maybe 8hrs a week, currently. Performance is not anywhere 
as important as stability. (I left behind the bleeding edge years ago.)

Nearly every expert Including SW corp says that Core2Duo will benefit SW 
but NOT Core2Quad, so don't waste the money. Same answer for dual CPU, 
unless you are doing rendering.

ca

Anna has done alot of work testing different set ups and CPU's.  Odds
are well in her favor that she is correct and you should do what she
says.

KMaren wrote:
> Anna has done alot of work testing different set ups and CPU's.  Odds
> are well in her favor that she is correct and you should do what she
> says.

I dunno. The top end i7 costs $1,000 at NewEgg. The top end AMD Phenom 
costs $229. The only benchmark that showed the top end i7 doubling the 
performance of the Phenom was in ray tracing. If you don't go with the 
fastest i7 the difference with the significantly less expensive Phenom 
is also less making the price/performance gain less attractive. By going 
with the less expensive upgrade you can plan to to retire the new system 
sooner when even faster chips come out in the future. Given that the top 
end i7 will be surpassed in a year or less the decision might be as much 
about cost as performance, especially with SW improving performance 
every year.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=4


Looks like Intel might be getting ready to throw a curve at SW.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3513

They are going to integrate graphics and CPU effectively cutting out 
NVidia and every other graphics chip maker.


TOP

i'm not sure what you are using now but for me,... the jump has to be
at least 3X factor for it to be worth while...
sure,.. if you want to be very conservative... go with one of the
E8XXXX processors and nearly any above average mobo will do but ASUS
is pretty good.
but seriously,.. for the cost/performance, the core i7 920 is by far
the best bang for the buck!
you know as well as most people here.. what is very important is a
good motherboard and memory.. and of course the good pro graphics
card.
i have built every computer i have used and getting good components is
key.
which ones... read reviews and base it off what is selling well
overall.
as for the so called professional SW users and SW Corp?   you gotta be
kidding, right??  arrgghh... I won't go there.
my personal fav for mobo's is ASUS but,... Giga has been producing
some very good mobo's lately.
my personal fav memory is Crucial but,.. OCZ is suppose to be very
good as well.
and,.. if you making your own system.. get a above average power
supply!
hey,.. even if you were to get the BEST,.. the is a chance you will
have problems... i've seen MANY clients who have bought the very
BEST...  it can be the luck of the draw but if you have to be even
more conservative.. buy into mega insurance,... next day repair/
replace,... wipe my nose,.... systems.

AMD... i think they have some really good stuff and ideas.   as for
the lastest,.. if you pair their stuff up well,.. it's a very good
bang for the buck as well!
their site has recommended systems so that helps.
also,.. depending on the mobo socket you have,.. you may be able to
upgrade just the cpu and memory to get a good 2X performance jump?

good luck!   8^)


On Feb 11, 8:46=A0pm, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
> p...@zxys.com wrote:
> > here is a good link for reference...
>
> >http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
>
> > ..
>
> > On Feb 11, 10:18 am, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
> >> Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore?
> >> Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent.
> >> (Gigabit/Biostar?)
>
> >> ca
>
> I am using SW maybe 8hrs a week, currently. Performance is not anywhere
> as important as stability. (I left behind the bleeding edge years ago.)
>
> Nearly every expert Including SW corp says that Core2Duo will benefit SW
> but NOT Core2Quad, so don't waste the money. Same answer for dual CPU,
> unless you are doing rendering.
>
> ca

Corsair  (correction,  meant to say,.. heck,.. a lot of them are good
nowadays!)

Just make sure they are paired or throw out what you have and get new
4, 6 or 8 gig bundles of what ever your cpu/mobo is designed for!

...

On Feb 13, 9:08=A0am, p...@zxys.com wrote:
> my personal fav memory is Crucial but,.. OCZ is suppose to be very
> good as well.

clay,

Head over to my blog at www.solidmuse.com  In the right sidebar are
links to several SW Benchmark tests.  Try them on your current system
and also check out the results for yourself.  From there you can make
your own decision on how much you want to spend for the desired
performance from SW.

When you get your new machine be sure to run the benchmarks and submit
results.

I will be updating the spreadsheets this weekend with some more
results that I have received in the last week or so.

Cheers,

Anna
www.solidmuse.com

I'll look at Annas site.

So back to the question. Is anyone running AMD Phenoms & SW? I am 
remarkably happy with an AMD dinosaur, but it is time to start over 
again. A 3x increase will be easy to accomplish.

manager wrote:
> KMaren wrote:
>> Anna has done alot of work testing different set ups and CPU's.  Odds
>> are well in her favor that she is correct and you should do what she
>> says.
> 
> I dunno. The top end i7 costs $1,000 at NewEgg. The top end AMD Phenom 
> costs $229. The only benchmark that showed the top end i7 doubling the 
> performance of the Phenom was in ray tracing. If you don't go with the 
> fastest i7 the difference with the significantly less expensive Phenom 
> is also less making the price/performance gain less attractive. By going 
> with the less expensive upgrade you can plan to to retire the new system 
> sooner when even faster chips come out in the future. Given that the top 
> end i7 will be surpassed in a year or less the decision might be as much 
> about cost as performance, especially with SW improving performance 
> every year.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=4
> 
> 
> Looks like Intel might be getting ready to throw a curve at SW.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3513
> 
> They are going to integrate graphics and CPU effectively cutting out 
> NVidia and every other graphics chip maker.
> 
> 
> TOP

Paul,

Currently I am thinking Asus P5Q & Intel 8500 will suffice, Or ASUS & 
AMD Phenom. Maybe gigabit. The only question that matters is 
reliability. I haven't had a blue screen for years. tells you about how 
old my system is. My laptop is 2x faster.

The I7 looks good, but considering the benchmark comment by "manager" I 
don't see the SW real benefit, for what I use it for. 90% of my SW stuff 
  is square corners right now.

you have a desktop? Or are you still a laptop will travel guy?

ca

paul@zxys.com wrote:
> i'm not sure what you are using now but for me,... the jump has to be
> at least 3X factor for it to be worth while...
> sure,.. if you want to be very conservative... go with one of the
> E8XXXX processors and nearly any above average mobo will do but ASUS
> is pretty good.
> but seriously,.. for the cost/performance, the core i7 920 is by far
> the best bang for the buck!
> you know as well as most people here.. what is very important is a
> good motherboard and memory.. and of course the good pro graphics
> card.
> i have built every computer i have used and getting good components is
> key.
> which ones... read reviews and base it off what is selling well
> overall.
> as for the so called professional SW users and SW Corp?   you gotta be
> kidding, right??  arrgghh... I won't go there.
> my personal fav for mobo's is ASUS but,... Giga has been producing
> some very good mobo's lately.
> my personal fav memory is Crucial but,.. OCZ is suppose to be very
> good as well.
> and,.. if you making your own system.. get a above average power
> supply!
> hey,.. even if you were to get the BEST,.. the is a chance you will
> have problems... i've seen MANY clients who have bought the very
> BEST...  it can be the luck of the draw but if you have to be even
> more conservative.. buy into mega insurance,... next day repair/
> replace,... wipe my nose,.... systems.
> 
> AMD... i think they have some really good stuff and ideas.   as for
> the lastest,.. if you pair their stuff up well,.. it's a very good
> bang for the buck as well!
> their site has recommended systems so that helps.
> also,.. depending on the mobo socket you have,.. you may be able to
> upgrade just the cpu and memory to get a good 2X performance jump?
> 
> good luck!   8^)
> 
> 
> On Feb 11, 8:46 pm, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
>> p...@zxys.com wrote:
>>> here is a good link for reference...
>>> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
>>> ..
>>> On Feb 11, 10:18 am, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
>>>> Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore?
>>>> Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent.
>>>> (Gigabit/Biostar?)
>>>> ca
>> I am using SW maybe 8hrs a week, currently. Performance is not anywhere
>> as important as stability. (I left behind the bleeding edge years ago.)
>>
>> Nearly every expert Including SW corp says that Core2Duo will benefit SW
>> but NOT Core2Quad, so don't waste the money. Same answer for dual CPU,
>> unless you are doing rendering.
>>
>> ca
> 

Clay,

I have one person who has submitted results for an AMD Phenom system.
It is for the Scooby-Doo surface model.  It is well down the list for
Crtl-Q rebuild performance of this particular model.  All of the
benchmarks are pretty consistent in their results, so I would expect
the Phenom to perform the same in relation to the other cpu's on all
the Ctrl-Q rebuild tests.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=3Dpz7wTpIkC7LAuGJ0evMeWQw

Cheers,

Anna









On Feb 13, 1:46=A0pm, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
> I'll look at Annas site.
>
> So back to the question. Is anyone running AMD Phenoms & SW? I am
> remarkably happy with an AMD dinosaur, but it is time to start over
> again. A 3x increase will be easy to accomplish.
>
>

anna, thank you Looks like SW2009 is a shade faster than SW2008.

It would be nice to know what actual motherboard the top Core 2 duo 
machines had. (Dell & Xi)

You can also see that SW doesn't really take advantage of more than 2 
cores. The higher speed top machines probably perform better due to the 
increased ram speed more than anything else.

Also really interesting to see the low cost, lower speed Dell XPS neck 
and neck with the top picks, even with the slower ram. Must be the 
FX3500 that pushed it to the top.

All the programing geeks (That use SW too) tell me that SW doesn't 
really take advantage of 64bit OS, so it is curious that the 64 bit OS 
is on all the top machines.....hhmmm....be interesting to see the exact 
same machine with OS comparison. (Not exactly a fun task)

ca

Anna Wood wrote:
> Clay,
> 
> I have one person who has submitted results for an AMD Phenom system.
> It is for the Scooby-Doo surface model.  It is well down the list for
> Crtl-Q rebuild performance of this particular model.  All of the
> benchmarks are pretty consistent in their results, so I would expect
> the Phenom to perform the same in relation to the other cpu's on all
> the Ctrl-Q rebuild tests.
> 
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LAuGJ0evMeWQw
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Anna
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 13, 1:46 pm, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
>> I'll look at Annas site.
>>
>> So back to the question. Is anyone running AMD Phenoms & SW? I am
>> remarkably happy with an AMD dinosaur, but it is time to start over
>> again. A 3x increase will be easy to accomplish.
>>
>>

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:05:57 -0800, clay <a_design@citlink.net> wrote:

>All the programing geeks (That use SW too) tell me that SW doesn't 
>really take advantage of 64bit OS

  WHAT "advantage"?
  AFAIK A*B takes about the same number of clock
cycles no matter the core precision/word size.
__ 
Cliff

On Feb 11, 10:18=A0am, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
> Time to upgrade again. Anyone running AMD with Solidworks anymore?
> Otherwise recommend a Core 2 ASUS P5 motherboard, or equivalent.
> (Gigabit/Biostar?)
>
> ca

 My 2 year old compaq with an AMD processor, runs AutoCAD inventor and
Solid Edge quite a bit faster than my new Dell M6300 with Intel
inside.

I am told that the AMD chip is much friendlier to math and vector
graphics than intel.



its probably worth doing your own research.



Phil scott

Anna Wood wrote:
> Clay,
> 
> I have one person who has submitted results for an AMD Phenom system.
> It is for the Scooby-Doo surface model.  It is well down the list for
> Crtl-Q rebuild performance of this particular model.  All of the
> benchmarks are pretty consistent in their results, so I would expect
> the Phenom to perform the same in relation to the other cpu's on all
> the Ctrl-Q rebuild tests.
> 
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LAuGJ0evMeWQw
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Anna
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 13, 1:46 pm, clay <a_des...@citlink.net> wrote:
>> I'll look at Annas site.
>>
>> So back to the question. Is anyone running AMD Phenoms & SW? I am
>> remarkably happy with an AMD dinosaur, but it is time to start over
>> again. A 3x increase will be easy to accomplish.
>>
>>
Strangely the Phenom comes out just a tad bit faster than the other AMD, 
an FX60 chip which is quite old. I would think the Phenom would be 
considerably faster than a CPU that is at least 3yrs old which suggests 
that settings or setup are playing a part.

The comparison with the i7 is also with different graphics cards and the 
  Scooby benchmark is heavy on graphics. Even so the FX570 is an entry 
level card. When comparing CPUs it is better to use a benchmark that is 
independent of the graphics card used. Typically when doing a graphics 
intensive benchmark there needs to be a standard set of options and 
screen resolutions.

TOP

The Phenom that is listed is a 2.3 GHz part.  It is a first generation
Phenom X4.   It performs about the same as a first-generation Core2
Duo running at 2.4GHz.  The new Phenom II processors are supposed to
be more competitive clock-for-clock and are available with up to 3.0
GHz clock speed.   While not at the same performance level of the Core
i7, the Phenom II *may* be competitive alternatives to the Core2
Unfortunately, there really aren't any published SolidWorks benchmarks
to prove it out one way or the other.

If absolute top peformance is the goal, then the Core i7 is the only
real choice.  If price/performance is important to you, then the top
end Core2 Duo 8500/8600/8700  are safe buys.  The Core2 Quad Q9550 is
a good choice for animators/analysts on a tight budget, too.

Also, the Scooby-Doo model is a surface model and does benefit *a
little bit* from quad cores.  (There is a greater delta in performance
between the Core i7/quad Xeons and Core2 Duo processors on the Scooby-
Doo benchmark than on the Punchholder benchmark.)  Rendering and
analyis apps DO benefit from quad cores.

jim.zink@symsolutions.com wrote:
> The Phenom that is listed is a 2.3 GHz part.  It is a first generation
> Phenom X4.   It performs about the same as a first-generation Core2
> Duo running at 2.4GHz.  The new Phenom II processors are supposed to
> be more competitive clock-for-clock and are available with up to 3.0
> GHz clock speed.   While not at the same performance level of the Core
> i7, the Phenom II *may* be competitive alternatives to the Core2
> Unfortunately, there really aren't any published SolidWorks benchmarks
> to prove it out one way or the other.
> 
> If absolute top peformance is the goal, then the Core i7 is the only
> real choice.  If price/performance is important to you, then the top
> end Core2 Duo 8500/8600/8700  are safe buys.  The Core2 Quad Q9550 is
> a good choice for animators/analysts on a tight budget, too.
> 
> Also, the Scooby-Doo model is a surface model and does benefit *a
> little bit* from quad cores.  (There is a greater delta in performance
> between the Core i7/quad Xeons and Core2 Duo processors on the Scooby-
> Doo benchmark than on the Punchholder benchmark.)  Rendering and
> analyis apps DO benefit from quad cores.
> 
If absolute performance is the goal then wait a bit because Intel is 
going to speed up their CPU again shortly. For the price of the top end 
bleeding edge i7 CPU alone you can buy 2 1/2 AMD Phenom II x4 Deneb CPUs 
with motherboard.

To look at it another way, if you are building a balanced system and 
don't have infinite resources you take the $800 difference in CPU plus 
motherboard price for the i7 and put it into a better graphics card than 
you would normally purchase or buy more ram or both. The difference in 
speed between the top end Phenom and the top end i7 is nowhere near 2x 
to 3x needed to justify paying top dollar.

I hope Anna can dig up some benchmark results comparing the top end AMD 
chips to the top end Intel chips because from a price/performance 
standpoint the AMD appears to be on top. Unless somebody can show that 
having the bleeding edge fastest chip will provide a tangible time 
savings in real world performance (read: how much work can be done in a 
day).

Spec doesn't have any published results for SW since SW2007 took over 
the benchmarking. In addition I was unable to find any current AMD 
scores there. There is a distinct lack of competition.

One way to tell how much a fast CPU will help in day to day activities 
is to look at the CPU time used by the SolidWorks process in Task 
Manager. What you do is look at this number and compare it to how much 
real time has passed during a period of heavy SW use. For example, if 
you are using SW heavily for 2 hours and Task Manager says you have used 
1/2 to 1 hour of CPU time you are probably limited by the CPU speed. If 
in the same 2 hours you have used 15minutes of CPU then you are probably 
not limited by CPU speed.

======================================
Current pricing from Google search
======================================
Price of a top end AMD processor:
AMD Phenom II X4 quad core 940 3.0ghz black ...	$236.50 - EWorldSale.com
NewEgg: AMD Phenom II X4 940 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor $260 shipped

CPU and mobo combo
AMD Phenom II 940 3.0GHz Motherboad Combo (Asus M4A78 PRO) $384.20

=======================================================================

Price of a top end i7
Intel Core i7 3.2 GHz Processor	$980 to $1,464 - 123 stores
mobo runs around $300

Memory DD3
6Gb $250.

I would be happy to add benchmark results to my Google spreaadsheets
for current AMD Phenom II systems.  If anyone has an AMD system run
the benchmarks and send me the results.

Cheers,

Anna
www.solidmuse.com

I would agree that the Core i7 is somewhat overpriced and hard to
justify for most users - at least at this time.  A better comparison
to the Phenom II would be the Core2 series, and here the pricing is
very close.

Core2 Quad Q9650 3.0 GHz $324
Core2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz $264

The Phenom II 3.0 GHz *might* offer comparable performance, but the
Core2 has *proven* to be a terrific CPU for SolidWorks.

jim.zink@symsolutions.com wrote:
> I would agree that the Core i7 is somewhat overpriced and hard to
> justify for most users - at least at this time.  A better comparison
> to the Phenom II would be the Core2 series, and here the pricing is
> very close.
> 
> Core2 Quad Q9650 3.0 GHz $324
> Core2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz $264
> 
> The Phenom II 3.0 GHz *might* offer comparable performance, but the
> Core2 has *proven* to be a terrific CPU for SolidWorks.
Please be clear, I am not saying the Phenom II x4 is faster. What I am 
saying is that the majority of people wouldn't notice the difference in 
a days work and so it wouldn't make sense to spend all the extra money 
on the Intel item. Unless you are seeing more than 25% of your time 
waiting on the cpu the 1.5x speed increase of an i7 probably isn't worth 
it because it will only buy you 5-10 minutes a day.

Both the i7 and the Core2 are overpriced when it comes to performance. 
At the price differential we see Paul Salvador's 2x-3x speed increase 
recommendation is in play. As the quotes show below, it isn't just the 
cpu price, but the cpu + mobo + memory = system price that is important.

While you may cast aspersions on AMD running SW reliably, we have heard 
that one before. There is just nothing to justify that anymore than 
saying the i7 cannot run SW reliably. AMD historically has had a very 
good (*proven*) track record with SW.

Anandtech covered the performance price aspect:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492

> Despite the similar CPU costs, the motherboard and DDR3 memory costs make the i7-920 a 40% more expensive purchase. For the difference in platform cost you could purchase a faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, or even put money towards an SSD. Core i7's total cost of ownership keeps it from being Phenom II's direct competition; instead Phenom II is really competing with Intel's 45nm Core 2 Quad processors.

> Architecturally, Phenom II is what the original Phenom should have been. It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a step in the right direction.
> 
> Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock speed to keep you happy in the long run.
> 
> The same goes for the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Q9300/Q8200; AMD wins that comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X4 920 falls behind. The Q9400 is the better buy of the two, but only if Intel does come through with rumored price cuts. We'll know for sure by the end of the month.
> 
> AMD also thankfully produced a good overclocker, at least with our review samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without increasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm process. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum clock speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Core i7 is Intel's second 45nm processor while Phenom II is AMD's first; it will only get better with time.

Hey Paul,

I guess I'm not getting where you guys are with this on price/
performance because at Newegg I can get a i7 920 / Asus P6T mobo /
6gigs triple channel corsair,..  for under $800.
And for a Phenom II 940 black.. with a good asus mobo which supports
the latest and latest memory with 6 gigs,.. it's about $650 so.... I
don't get the big cost/performance thing you guys are talking about?
I'm pro - AMD and I think the Phenom II's are nice (finally) but what
was originally asked was who and what were the findings on performance/
stability for AMD using SW.
And, I agree, that AMD is worth it (at a risk).   But, it really was
issue of what works now,.. what is more stable or what are the
relative known overall,..  and how does that weigh in for overall cost/
performance/stability... which cpu/mobo/memory.... get's that sweet
spot award?

I think clay was last at a E8500/Asus P5Q/memory?,... so,.. he's is
(imho) pretty much in the sweet spot?

Personally,..  if you build it yourself,.. the i7 920 is the better
overall deal,... but that is me.  (also less hair pulled out,.. more
changes... fewer weekends lost,...)

I don't know, it's not easy for most people too justify the cost now
and it well may not pay itself off within the estimated lifetime and
use?

Conservatively,.. the E8500 is probably the safest balance within most
SW use right now?

Who knows,.. maybe there are some closet Phenom II 920/940 users
reading right now??

...


On Feb 23, 6:03=A0pm, manager <consu...@engtran.com> wrote:
> jim.z...@symsolutions.com wrote:
> > I would agree that the Core i7 is somewhat overpriced and hard to
> > justify for most users - at least at this time. =A0A better comparison
> > to the Phenom II would be the Core2 series, and here the pricing is
> > very close.
>
> > Core2 Quad Q9650 3.0 GHz $324
> > Core2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz $264
>
> > The Phenom II 3.0 GHz *might* offer comparable performance, but the
> > Core2 has *proven* to be a terrific CPU for SolidWorks.
>
> Please be clear, I am not saying the Phenom II x4 is faster. What I am
> saying is that the majority of people wouldn't notice the difference in
> a days work and so it wouldn't make sense to spend all the extra money
> on the Intel item. Unless you are seeing more than 25% of your time
> waiting on the cpu the 1.5x speed increase of an i7 probably isn't worth
> it because it will only buy you 5-10 minutes a day.
>
> Both the i7 and the Core2 are overpriced when it comes to performance.
> At the price differential we see Paul Salvador's 2x-3x speed increase
> recommendation is in play. As the quotes show below, it isn't just the
> cpu price, but the cpu + mobo + memory =3D system price that is important=
..
>
> While you may cast aspersions on AMD running SW reliably, we have heard
> that one before. There is just nothing to justify that anymore than
> saying the i7 cannot run SW reliably. AMD historically has had a very
> good (*proven*) track record with SW.
>
> Anandtech covered the performance price aspect:
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3D3492
>
> > Despite the similar CPU costs, the motherboard and DDR3 memory costs ma=
ke the i7-920 a 40% more expensive purchase. For the difference in platform=
 cost you could purchase a faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, or even=
 put money towards an SSD. Core i7's total cost of ownership keeps it from =
being Phenom II's direct competition; instead Phenom II is really competing=
 with Intel's 45nm Core 2 Quad processors.
> > Architecturally, Phenom II is what the original Phenom should have been=
.. It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a step=
 in the right direction.
>
> > Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the =
better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not th=
e 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of =
the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the re=
commendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940=
, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock spe=
ed to keep you happy in the long run.
>
> > The same goes for the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Q9300/Q8200; AMD wins that c=
omparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X4 =
920 falls behind. The Q9400 is the better buy of the two, but only if Intel=
 does come through with rumored price cuts. We'll know for sure by the end =
of the month.
>
> > AMD also thankfully produced a good overclocker, at least with our revi=
ew samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without inc=
reasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm p=
rocess. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum clo=
ck speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Core =
i7 is Intel's second 45nm processor while Phenom II is AMD's first; it will=
 only get better with time.

paul@zxys.com wrote:
> Hey Paul,
> 
> I guess I'm not getting where you guys are with this on price/
> performance because at Newegg I can get a i7 920 / Asus P6T mobo /
> 6gigs triple channel corsair,..  for under $800.
> And for a Phenom II 940 black.. with a good asus mobo which supports
> the latest and latest memory with 6 gigs,.. it's about $650 so.... I
> don't get the big cost/performance thing you guys are talking about?
> I'm pro - AMD and I think the Phenom II's are nice (finally) but what
> was originally asked was who and what were the findings on performance/
> stability for AMD using SW.
> And, I agree, that AMD is worth it (at a risk).   But, it really was
> issue of what works now,.. what is more stable or what are the
> relative known overall,..  and how does that weigh in for overall cost/
> performance/stability... which cpu/mobo/memory.... get's that sweet
> spot award?
> 
> I think clay was last at a E8500/Asus P5Q/memory?,... so,.. he's is
> (imho) pretty much in the sweet spot?
> 
> Personally,..  if you build it yourself,.. the i7 920 is the better
> overall deal,... but that is me.  (also less hair pulled out,.. more
> changes... fewer weekends lost,...)
> 
> I don't know, it's not easy for most people too justify the cost now
> and it well may not pay itself off within the estimated lifetime and
> use?
> 
> Conservatively,.. the E8500 is probably the safest balance within most
> SW use right now?
> 
> Who knows,.. maybe there are some closet Phenom II 920/940 users
> reading right now??
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> On Feb 23, 6:03 pm, manager <consu...@engtran.com> wrote:
>> jim.z...@symsolutions.com wrote:
>>> I would agree that the Core i7 is somewhat overpriced and hard to
>>> justify for most users - at least at this time.  A better comparison
>>> to the Phenom II would be the Core2 series, and here the pricing is
>>> very close.
>>> Core2 Quad Q9650 3.0 GHz $324
>>> Core2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz $264
>>> The Phenom II 3.0 GHz *might* offer comparable performance, but the
>>> Core2 has *proven* to be a terrific CPU for SolidWorks.
>> Please be clear, I am not saying the Phenom II x4 is faster. What I am
>> saying is that the majority of people wouldn't notice the difference in
>> a days work and so it wouldn't make sense to spend all the extra money
>> on the Intel item. Unless you are seeing more than 25% of your time
>> waiting on the cpu the 1.5x speed increase of an i7 probably isn't worth
>> it because it will only buy you 5-10 minutes a day.
>>
>> Both the i7 and the Core2 are overpriced when it comes to performance.
>> At the price differential we see Paul Salvador's 2x-3x speed increase
>> recommendation is in play. As the quotes show below, it isn't just the
>> cpu price, but the cpu + mobo + memory = system price that is important.
>>
>> While you may cast aspersions on AMD running SW reliably, we have heard
>> that one before. There is just nothing to justify that anymore than
>> saying the i7 cannot run SW reliably. AMD historically has had a very
>> good (*proven*) track record with SW.
>>
>> Anandtech covered the performance price aspect:
>>
>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492
>>
>>> Despite the similar CPU costs, the motherboard and DDR3 memory costs make the i7-920 a 40% more expensive purchase. For the difference in platform cost you could purchase a faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, or even put money towards an SSD. Core i7's total cost of ownership keeps it from being Phenom II's direct competition; instead Phenom II is really competing with Intel's 45nm Core 2 Quad processors.
>>> Architecturally, Phenom II is what the original Phenom should have been. It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a step in the right direction.
>>> Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 940, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock speed to keep you happy in the long run.
>>> The same goes for the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Q9300/Q8200; AMD wins that comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X4 920 falls behind. The Q9400 is the better buy of the two, but only if Intel does come through with rumored price cuts. We'll know for sure by the end of the month.
>>> AMD also thankfully produced a good overclocker, at least with our review samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without increasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm process. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum clock speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Core i7 is Intel's second 45nm processor while Phenom II is AMD's first; it will only get better with time.
> 
Paul,

I'm just providing an opposing viewpoint. Inoculation against herd 
instinct if you will.

And I will say that either AMD dropped the ball or Intel just decided 
after years of messing with the old Pentiums that they had to move 
forward. The whole industry is seems to work on one or the other 
dropping the ball in alternate succession. The danger comes when one or 
the other becomes a monopoly.

Prices go up and down so the article I quoted could also be out of date. 
  With price it is, "true at the time of writing". I think Intel is 
probably taking the route of charging every dime they can get for the 
high performance models until price becomes an issue. We all know that 
they just select those chips that run fastest out of the whole batch to 
sell at a higher price point (or alternately, they lock down the 
majority of chips to a lower speed). This means they can drop the price 
if they need to compete. So competition is a good thing.

Prices also come down shortly before the next leap in performance takes 
place. So if you buy an i7 today and in 3 months it's successor comes 
out and puts it in the place the Phenom 940 is in today that price 
difference won't look so good.

I am not sure where the "what works" argument comes from. Does anybody 
seriously believe that there has been or will be an issue with a 
processor from either manufacturer with SW? Given that SW is so 
dependent on the underlying MSoft layers to run and that there is 
nothing out there about Phenom's having any problems I don't get the FUD 
argument. I don't recall seeing similar fears expressed when Intel came 
out with the Core 2 or the i7 which were huge departures by Intel toward 
the way AMD had been doing things. Prior to the Core 2 (actually the 
Centrino was first) AMD ruled the roost in performance. I would tend to 
think that SW tests their product on AMD and Intel as well since they 
don't have hardware restrictions on CPU like they do on graphics. In 
fact the only time I have ever seen a CPU problem with SW was back 
around 2003/2004 when there was a compiler issue with Intel that caused 
terrible performance.

 From the SW open web site on System Requirements.

> CPU
> 	
> 
>     * Intel� and AMD� processors.
>       Note:  SolidWorks is not supported on Apple Mac� based machines.
>     * eDrawings� is supported on Apple Macntosh�-based machines. 

It is interesting that they don't support SW on Intel based Mac's. (They 
also can't spell Macintosh.)

TOP

I read up on the reviews of the Phenom II on various hardware
websites.  Overall, the 3.0 GHz Phenom II 940 performs about the same
as the 2.66 GHz Intel Core2 Quad Q9400.

Then I went to Xi Computer and configured otherwise identical systems
with the Phenom II 940 and the C2Q 9400 (4GB RAM, 160GB Velociraptor
HDD, Quadro FX570).  The Intel system was $81 (or 6.9%) more expensive
than the AMD system.  So, for someone looking for an entry level
system for SolidWorks, the AMD is a marginally better value.

BUT, that is the top of the line for AMD and middle of the pack for
Intel.  The Intel system could be configured with a 3.0 GHz quad core
or 3.33 GHz dual core CPU for an additional $209 or $149
respectively.  Is the time that you'd save on a system that is 12-28%
faster worth $200?   I think most engineers would answer with a
resounding "YES".

OTOH, a system with a Core i7 940 2.93 GHz would be about 10% faster
than the 3.0 GHz C2Q 9650 on most operations and nearly 20% faster on
renderings -  but it would cost $609 or 45.6% more.   Is that worth
the extra cost?  Personally, I find it hard to justify for most users,
but for some, it will be worth every penny.

So, back to the original question:  AMD or Intel?  For those on a
tight budget looking for a system that costs less than $1200, AMD is a
viable alternative to Intel.  Anyone looking for higher performance at
a still reasonable cost, should look at the higher end Intel Core2
processors.  If price is not object, then the Core i7 is the top
performer, albeit at a premium price.

Hello Paul,

Yeah,... I hear what you're say'n,.. most systems today will work as
is and points taken about new technology (i7) and not giving the
Phenon II a fair shake.

So, to be fair,... core i7 is new technology which needs a whole new
motherboard (and memory). and it should be scrutinized over,...

Phenon II,.. which is a cpu upgrade or better cpu Phenon.version can
be used as relatively simple upgrade on many later AMD motherboards.
So,.. for those needing a quick inexpensive performance fix,.. Phenon
II is a very good option!

And,.. I hear you on the Mac stuff,... whatz wit dat!?!?!   Obviously
SW does not want to test it so, it's a CYA notice.

It is important for the users too be aware and use their buying power
(vote) as a way to support and drive the computing industry to be
healthy and competitive,.. we all win.

...


On Feb 24, 4:43=A0am, manager <consu...@engtran.com> wrote:
> p...@zxys.com wrote:
> > Hey Paul,
>
> > I guess I'm not getting where you guys are with this on price/
> > performance because at Newegg I can get a i7 920 / Asus P6T mobo /
> > 6gigs triple channel corsair,.. =A0for under $800.
> > And for a Phenom II 940 black.. with a good asus mobo which supports
> > the latest and latest memory with 6 gigs,.. it's about $650 so.... I
> > don't get the big cost/performance thing you guys are talking about?
> > I'm pro - AMD and I think the Phenom II's are nice (finally) but what
> > was originally asked was who and what were the findings on performance/
> > stability for AMD using SW.
> > And, I agree, that AMD is worth it (at a risk). =A0 But, it really was
> > issue of what works now,.. what is more stable or what are the
> > relative known overall,.. =A0and how does that weigh in for overall cos=
t/
> > performance/stability... which cpu/mobo/memory.... get's that sweet
> > spot award?
>
> > I think clay was last at a E8500/Asus P5Q/memory?,... so,.. he's is
> > (imho) pretty much in the sweet spot?
>
> > Personally,.. =A0if you build it yourself,.. the i7 920 is the better
> > overall deal,... but that is me. =A0(also less hair pulled out,.. more
> > changes... fewer weekends lost,...)
>
> > I don't know, it's not easy for most people too justify the cost now
> > and it well may not pay itself off within the estimated lifetime and
> > use?
>
> > Conservatively,.. the E8500 is probably the safest balance within most
> > SW use right now?
>
> > Who knows,.. maybe there are some closet Phenom II 920/940 users
> > reading right now??
>
> > ..
>
> > On Feb 23, 6:03 pm, manager <consu...@engtran.com> wrote:
> >> jim.z...@symsolutions.com wrote:
> >>> I would agree that the Core i7 is somewhat overpriced and hard to
> >>> justify for most users - at least at this time. =A0A better compariso=
n
> >>> to the Phenom II would be the Core2 series, and here the pricing is
> >>> very close.
> >>> Core2 Quad Q9650 3.0 GHz $324
> >>> Core2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz $264
> >>> The Phenom II 3.0 GHz *might* offer comparable performance, but the
> >>> Core2 has *proven* to be a terrific CPU for SolidWorks.
> >> Please be clear, I am not saying the Phenom II x4 is faster. What I am
> >> saying is that the majority of people wouldn't notice the difference i=
n
> >> a days work and so it wouldn't make sense to spend all the extra money
> >> on the Intel item. Unless you are seeing more than 25% of your time
> >> waiting on the cpu the 1.5x speed increase of an i7 probably isn't wor=
th
> >> it because it will only buy you 5-10 minutes a day.
>
> >> Both the i7 and the Core2 are overpriced when it comes to performance.
> >> At the price differential we see Paul Salvador's 2x-3x speed increase
> >> recommendation is in play. As the quotes show below, it isn't just the
> >> cpu price, but the cpu + mobo + memory =3D system price that is import=
ant.
>
> >> While you may cast aspersions on AMD running SW reliably, we have hear=
d
> >> that one before. There is just nothing to justify that anymore than
> >> saying the i7 cannot run SW reliably. AMD historically has had a very
> >> good (*proven*) track record with SW.
>
> >> Anandtech covered the performance price aspect:
>
> >>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3D3492
>
> >>> Despite the similar CPU costs, the motherboard and DDR3 memory costs =
make the i7-920 a 40% more expensive purchase. For the difference in platfo=
rm cost you could purchase a faster graphics card, bigger hard drive, or ev=
en put money towards an SSD. Core i7's total cost of ownership keeps it fro=
m being Phenom II's direct competition; instead Phenom II is really competi=
ng with Intel's 45nm Core 2 Quad processors.
> >>> Architecturally, Phenom II is what the original Phenom should have be=
en. It's not cache starved, and while not as balanced as Core i7, it's a st=
ep in the right direction.
> >>> Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly th=
e better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not =
the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price o=
f the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the =
recommendation goes back to Intel. The Q9550 is generally faster than the 9=
40, more overclockable at lower voltages, and a high enough default clock s=
peed to keep you happy in the long run.
> >>> The same goes for the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Q9300/Q8200; AMD wins that=
 comparison at the same price point. Compared to the Q9400, the Phenom II X=
4 920 falls behind. The Q9400 is the better buy of the two, but only if Int=
el does come through with rumored price cuts. We'll know for sure by the en=
d of the month.
> >>> AMD also thankfully produced a good overclocker, at least with our re=
view samples. The fact that we weren't able to overclock too high without i=
ncreasing the core voltage is a testament to the early nature of AMD's 45nm=
 process. Core i7, on the other hand, was basically able to reach maximum c=
lock speed without so much as touching the voltage dials. Remember that Cor=
e i7 is Intel's second 45nm processor while Phenom II is AMD's first; it wi=
ll only get better with time.
>
> Paul,
>
> I'm just providing an opposing viewpoint. Inoculation against herd
> instinct if you will.
>
> And I will say that either AMD dropped the ball or Intel just decided
> after years of messing with the old Pentiums that they had to move
> forward. The whole industry is seems to work on one or the other
> dropping the ball in alternate succession. The danger comes when one or
> the other becomes a monopoly.
>
> Prices go up and down so the article I quoted could also be out of date.
> =A0 With price it is, "true at the time of writing". I think Intel is
> probably taking the route of charging every dime they can get for the
> high performance models until price becomes an issue. We all know that
> they just select those chips that run fastest out of the whole batch to
> sell at a higher price point (or alternately, they lock down the
> majority of chips to a lower speed). This means they can drop the price
> if they need to compete. So competition is a good thing.
>
> Prices also come down shortly before the next leap in performance takes
> place. So if you buy an i7 today and in 3 months it's successor comes
> out and puts it in the place the Phenom 940 is in today that price
> difference won't look so good.
>
> I am not sure where the "what works" argument comes from. Does anybody
> seriously believe that there has been or will be an issue with a
> processor from either manufacturer with SW? Given that SW is so
> dependent on the underlying MSoft layers to run and that there is
> nothing out there about Phenom's having any problems I don't get the FUD
> argument. I don't recall seeing similar fears expressed when Intel came
> out with the Core 2 or the i7 which were huge departures by Intel toward
> the way AMD had been doing things. Prior to the Core 2 (actually the
> Centrino was first) AMD ruled the roost in performance. I would tend to
> think that SW tests their product on AMD and Intel as well since they
> don't have hardware restrictions on CPU like they do on graphics. In
> fact the only time I have ever seen a CPU problem with SW was back
> around 2003/2004 when there was a compiler issue with Intel that caused
> terrible performance.
>
> =A0From the SW open web site on System Requirements.
>
> > CPU
>
> > =A0 =A0 * Intel=AE and AMD=AE processors.
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Note: =A0SolidWorks is not supported on Apple Mac=AE based =
machines.
> > =A0 =A0 * eDrawings=AE is supported on Apple Macntosh=AE-based machines=
..
>
> It is interesting that they don't support SW on Intel based Mac's. (They
> also can't spell Macintosh.)
>
> TOP

sure,.. in this economy,.. it's a balance of what you can justify for
your return.
I think for most,.. the performance upgrades with be in the 1.5X
factor range.
And, not to forget,.. the overhead of moving to a new OS,.... Vista,
which is on nearly every new system.
By the end of the year,.. Vista with be OUT and Windoze 7 will be IN.

btw,... I've trialed Windoze 7 and yes,.. it's better than Vista,
imho, but... it's still Vista!?!?   More like,.. Vista 2.X.
Now,.. I personally believe the whole hype on Windoze 7 is because of
the economy and these writers (shaking in their boots) are all have
their pom-poms out with full force!
Can you blame them,... no.   Nothing wrong with positive thoughts and
guess what,... there ain't now other option.

...


On Feb 24, 7:47=A0am, jim.z...@symsolutions.com wrote:
> I read up on the reviews of the Phenom II on various hardware
> websites. =A0Overall, the 3.0 GHz Phenom II 940 performs about the same
> as the 2.66 GHz Intel Core2 Quad Q9400.
>
> Then I went to Xi Computer and configured otherwise identical systems
> with the Phenom II 940 and the C2Q 9400 (4GB RAM, 160GB Velociraptor
> HDD, Quadro FX570). =A0The Intel system was $81 (or 6.9%) more expensive
> than the AMD system. =A0So, for someone looking for an entry level
> system for SolidWorks, the AMD is a marginally better value.
>
> BUT, that is the top of the line for AMD and middle of the pack for
> Intel. =A0The Intel system could be configured with a 3.0 GHz quad core
> or 3.33 GHz dual core CPU for an additional $209 or $149
> respectively. =A0Is the time that you'd save on a system that is 12-28%
> faster worth $200? =A0 I think most engineers would answer with a
> resounding "YES".
>
> OTOH, a system with a Core i7 940 2.93 GHz would be about 10% faster
> than the 3.0 GHz C2Q 9650 on most operations and nearly 20% faster on
> renderings - =A0but it would cost $609 or 45.6% more. =A0 Is that worth
> the extra cost? =A0Personally, I find it hard to justify for most users,
> but for some, it will be worth every penny.
>
> So, back to the original question: =A0AMD or Intel? =A0For those on a
> tight budget looking for a system that costs less than $1200, AMD is a
> viable alternative to Intel. =A0Anyone looking for higher performance at
> a still reasonable cost, should look at the higher end Intel Core2
> processors. =A0If price is not object, then the Core i7 is the top
> performer, albeit at a premium price.

paul@zxys.com wrote:
> sure,.. in this economy,.. it's a balance of what you can justify for
> your return.
> I think for most,.. the performance upgrades with be in the 1.5X
> factor range.
> And, not to forget,.. the overhead of moving to a new OS,.... Vista,
> which is on nearly every new system.
> By the end of the year,.. Vista with be OUT and Windoze 7 will be IN.
> 
> btw,... I've trialed Windoze 7 and yes,.. it's better than Vista,
> imho, but... it's still Vista!?!?   More like,.. Vista 2.X.
> Now,.. I personally believe the whole hype on Windoze 7 is because of
> the economy and these writers (shaking in their boots) are all have
> their pom-poms out with full force!
> Can you blame them,... no.   Nothing wrong with positive thoughts and
> guess what,... there ain't now other option.
> 
> ..
Paul,

I'm just getting tired of the constant need to upgrade everything. PTC 
and UG don't make demands on new hardware nearly as often as SW does 
imho. I reviewed my box today because of some 2009 issues. Although 2009 
runs acceptably for what I do, SW doesn't cert the graphics card and 
what used to be a lot of memory now isn't. No doubt 2010 will change the 
picture again.

I was happy running SW on W95 and did so for a long, long time. There 
was no performance difference with NT 4.0 and the whole deal would run 
on a machine with 128Mb Ram and a 1Gb hard drive. Many young'ns here 
won't even know how that is possible. Then I played the upgrade game for 
a while and have a whole box of mobos to show for it. And with all the 
hardware upgrades SW is still slower than it was on that W95 box for 
much of the work I do.

90% of the improvement SW makes do not affect what I do and the 
improvements I have always needed badly have never come.

<flame off>

So I am contemplating building an AMD box just to see what can be done. 
I think I have found some playing field levelers, but like I mentioned, 
it is time to upgrade because SW won't run on approved (in the past) 
hardware any more.

TOP

jim.zink@symsolutions.com wrote:
> I read up on the reviews of the Phenom II on various hardware
> websites.  Overall, the 3.0 GHz Phenom II 940 performs about the same
> as the 2.66 GHz Intel Core2 Quad Q9400.
> 
> Then I went to Xi Computer and configured otherwise identical systems
> with the Phenom II 940 and the C2Q 9400 (4GB RAM, 160GB Velociraptor
> HDD, Quadro FX570).  The Intel system was $81 (or 6.9%) more expensive
> than the AMD system.  So, for someone looking for an entry level
> system for SolidWorks, the AMD is a marginally better value.
> 
> BUT, that is the top of the line for AMD and middle of the pack for
> Intel.  The Intel system could be configured with a 3.0 GHz quad core
> or 3.33 GHz dual core CPU for an additional $209 or $149
> respectively.  Is the time that you'd save on a system that is 12-28%
> faster worth $200?   I think most engineers would answer with a
> resounding "YES".
> 
> OTOH, a system with a Core i7 940 2.93 GHz would be about 10% faster
> than the 3.0 GHz C2Q 9650 on most operations and nearly 20% faster on
> renderings -  but it would cost $609 or 45.6% more.   Is that worth
> the extra cost?  Personally, I find it hard to justify for most users,
> but for some, it will be worth every penny.
> 
> So, back to the original question:  AMD or Intel?  For those on a
> tight budget looking for a system that costs less than $1200, AMD is a
> viable alternative to Intel.  Anyone looking for higher performance at
> a still reasonable cost, should look at the higher end Intel Core2
> processors.  If price is not object, then the Core i7 is the top
> performer, albeit at a premium price.
Jim,

I went on Xi's site and configured 3 1/2 machines identical as can be. I 
quoted the lowest cost components other than CPU, memory, graphics and 
mobo. No OS or hids just to make the difference in price a CPU can bring 
obvious. Clearly there is a big difference even for comparable 
performance. This is not an $81 difference and if you factor in the 
effect of a hotter graphics card the AMD wins over the Intel at the 
Q9550 or Q9650 level. I would put the Phenom up with the Q9550 or Q9650 
Intel chips on average, not the Q9400. With Intel having so many choices 
you can pretty much ask how much do you want to spend and find a 
processor for that.

AMD Phenom II X4 940, 4Gb DDR2, Asus mobo, NVidia FX1700, 160gb hdd, no 
OS, no monitor, mouse or keyboard.  $1,379
AMD Phenom II X4 940, 4Gb DDR2, Asus mobo, NVidia FX1700, 160gb hdd, no 
OS, no monitor, mouse or keyboard.  $1,729

Intel i7 965 on Asus mobo, everything else the same. $2,559
Intel C2 Q9650, ditto. $1,719.

For the difference in comparable CPU if I go with AMD I can get the 
higher end video card giving a boost to the system on large assembly 
rendering for $10 more.