Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom 2 920 and 940 Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 29, 2008 11:36:00 PM

Ok, so there are now a few reviews and benchies of the new Phenom 2 920, 940 (priced aroud £165 +VAT and £260 + VAT respectively) but i cant find any mention of them in here? why not? all too busy with christmas?
Firstly I'm not pro intel or AMD, and I dont have a current top end gaming rig, still choosing parts, and so I'm only interested in pure performance and price.


http://209.85.135.104/translate_c?hl=en&sl=el&tl=en&u=h...

There's the link to the review, its translated so its not in perfect english. But as you can see, in GAMING benchmarks (the thing I'm sure most of us here really care about) the Phenom is not being "raped" by the i7's at all as some people have being saying. In fact, when the CPU's are pushed a bit and the res is jumped up to 1680x1050 the phenoms give the i7 a bloody nose. And more importantly, the Core2's aint exactly being brushed aside by their new replacements.

Given the set up cost for an i7 system (£200 mobo, £300 6g RAM tripple channel, and £200 for the 940, £400 for the 940) it begs the question what are hte i7's for, did intel not steal enough technology from AMD to make the i7 surpass its old guard, or did intel just do too good of a job on the Core2's and rush out the i7? I dont know. but what i do know is that tne phenom 2 920 is a bloody good upgrade for anyone with an AM2 mobo. And people building a new rig (without spending stupid amounts of money) now have a real choice. AMD, cheap mobo, cheap RAM, good performance. vs i7, expensive mobo and RAM, and very similar gaming results!

YES, the i7's are miles ahead in most of the synthetic test, but so what?! its like have a car with 500bhp that goes the same speed as a car with 250bhp, it may make more noise, but you're going to get there in the same time. The synthetic test show nothing meaningful, i dont even get why they're still used?! (does anyone? other then intel's PR department) AMD have always done crap in synthetic tests. But just look at the CAD and gaming results, the i7 and phenom 2 go head to head, and AMD even takes the lead in Far Cry 2, GTA 4, crysis warhead, and devil may care 4. SO well done AMD, and consider that thats all using an existing set up, not the custom set up that intel pushed out for the i7's, all the tripple channel crap really doesn't seem worth it, specially as DDR3 is already over priced.

One other thing i'd like to ask is, whats the point in the i7 940? its twice the price of the 920 (literally) but has almost no gain over the 920? as too with the phenom 2 920 and 940, an extra £100 for a 1-2 fps...not worth it in my books.

Anyway, just thought i'd throw my tupence worth in. If you're an intel fanboy, PLEASE dont go bleating at me, i just say what i see. AND YES, the q6600 is still in there holding its own on a mid range set up and only costing £140. (which is also a pain for the i7's)

all in all, i think any decent rig atm with a good AMD phenom 9950 or x2 7750 (mentioned because its new and only £55) or 6000. or an intel with an e8400 or q6600 is not lookin old yet and really isn't being over shadowed by anything that intel or AMD have released recently.

thanks for reading.
December 30, 2008 12:29:13 AM

apart from video encoding i dont see the point in i7
December 30, 2008 2:35:01 AM

I can honestly say that to mainstream buyers like me or even gamers i7 offers no real motivation. I mean come on...i want to be able to zip my 4.5mb folder faster? The people who really use it are usually those who work with rendering and it always help in those who use photo shop or edit websites for a a job. Yes not a hobbie a job. This is only the case if you want the best also because is not essential to have it for a job either. I know i've heard i7 shines in high res and multi set up GPU's but i just cant see may people putting 3 cards on sli or something. At least not me...Still i want it so badly though. Anyone barely has it so i want one but my money grows on trees so it is ok.
Related resources
December 30, 2008 2:48:04 AM

Already been posted about 5 times now.
December 30, 2008 2:57:12 AM

well one more wont make a difference
December 30, 2008 2:57:48 AM

I suppose. Unless roadrunner comes in here and pumps up his i7.
December 30, 2008 2:58:48 AM

NOOOoooooo
December 30, 2008 3:24:13 AM

LOL good one spathotan
December 30, 2008 4:50:16 AM

Rendering, photo editing, and encoding are certainly not the only tasks that justify an i7. For pretty much anything that doesn't bottleneck at the GPU or storage, the i7 is at least modestly faster than the Yorkfield. You'll find exceptions, but at the CPU level, they're about as common as Conroe losing to the A64... doesn't make A64 better overall, nor did it stop people from buying more A64s.

Some synthetic benchmarks only confuse the uninformed reader. So a CPU scores low in Sisoft's memory bandwidth. That's a weakness but not a problem on its own; the question you have to ask is whether the CPU is doing anything to compensate. Good caching? For predictive (common) workloads, good caching is better than good mem bandwidth. Unusually low latency? For highly random workloads, low latency (over)compensates for low sustained bandwidth.

The problem is when Joe the Reader takes an awesome Whetstone FPU score to mean the chip will load web pages faster, run games smoothly, decompress files sooner, and multitask better. Synthetic benchmarks are not invalid for being synthetic; they're invalid for representing overall performance at tasks that involve more than is tested by the benchmark. Other than that, they are very useful for understanding current processors so as to optimize programs for them.
December 30, 2008 5:22:08 AM

Intel released i7series because they can. It's just something to show how far ahead of AMD they are just in case some people still think the race is close. Yes, it's like the unnecessary 360 slam dunk in basketball as the clock runs out. There really isn't a point to it other than to show off and taunt the opposition.

It's shameful that AMD can't even offer a midrange CPU that beats Intel on value! For the first time in many many years, the best bang for the buck is with Intel's Q6600 or E8400. There is no reason for any mainstream person to get an AMD anymore, only the ultra poor budget computer buyer will buy an AMD as they are better in the sub $100 market.

And if you think these prices are high, wait until Intel regains its monopoly status. Some of you might be too young to remember the good ol' days when the top of the line Intel chip cost thousands, like the x486 running at 33mhz. Don't be surprised if a midrange mainstream chip will cost you $300+, after all, someone should profit from the spoils of war. The traitors who left Intel will have to pay for their disloyalty.
December 30, 2008 5:26:54 AM

Why do they use such less memory in these benches? A usual system would have 4GB/ 6GB of RAM. It might make some difference in rendering etc benchmarks and perhaps also in games. Does the speed make that much of a difference ? Should DDR2 1066 2GB be preferred over DDR2 800 4GB?
December 30, 2008 5:36:09 AM

perez8434 said:
I can honestly say that to mainstream buyers like me or even gamers i7 offers no real motivation.


Newsflash: AMD fan defends i7 for gaming:

Reports are that an i7 setup with two 4870x2's and a 30" LCD monitor is quite good for gaming. That's not mainstream gaming, mind you, but it's still gaming.

I'll be curious to see if the Phenom II 3.0 part overclocked can unlock two 4870x2's capabilities the way i7 can. I'm always interested in the kind of performance I'll never be able to afford; mainly because it drives tech forward such that the parts I can afford would have been considered a high end rig not too many months ago.

Well, at least my GPU, if not the CPU and monitor. :lol: 
December 30, 2008 5:50:57 AM

i7 is also needed for high performance GPU setups... the core 2's bottleneck three GTX 280's for example. core i7's do not. or at the very least, bottleneck LESS... but for 99% of us gamers, i7 is out of reach and unnecessary.
December 30, 2008 6:00:35 AM

Ill ask this once, and once only, where were all of you when I said current cpus were bottlenecks for current gpus? Its a whole new story now? I had a battle on my hands, and now the truth comes out? And like I said, next gen gpus will be way faster than the improvements we see in i7 as well, so what then? If you tinker with P2s settings, theres no reason why we wont see similar perf from P2, as far as multi gpu setups go. i7 may be ultimately a bit faster, but again, maybe not. Need more info first. This isnt aimed at you Venom, but Im seeing this said more and more, just like I said I would heheh
December 30, 2008 6:22:14 AM

i did some overclocking on Phenom 2 940 with a Zalman air fan.here are the results:
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=472608

before overclocking, 1M super pi took 23 seconds long and after that,it took 18 seconds.

at this speed CPU was very sensitive,but at 3.8Ghz,it was stable and i could play Call of Duty : world at war without any problem.

results for crysis at default speed is:
GPU test: 1600x1200, very high setting,AAx2 ,vsync enabled = 19.85fps
CPU test 1: 1600x1200, very high setting,AAx2 ,vsync enabled = 20.48fps
CPU test 2: 1600x1200, very high setting,AAx2 ,vsync enabled = 14.16fps
December 30, 2008 6:55:50 AM

why did AMD use the intel naming scheme for the phenom II's? 920 940? and nvidia mobo naming? 780 790?
December 30, 2008 10:55:19 AM

Because 'PhenomII 10800' didnt fare well in focus groups.
December 30, 2008 1:10:58 PM

Quote:
Ill ask this once, and once only, where were all of you when I said current cpus were bottlenecks for current gpus?

I was here, but has anything changed in the 1-2 months? My response was two-fold:

1) Games should be programmed to tax the GPU and spare using the CPU as a crutch, and on the other side, GPUs should be designed to handle all heavy game functions. But idealism is not necessarily reflected in reality... though in most modern games, we do find heavy use of the GPU.

2) For single-card setups with mainstream quads, even at low resolution, there was considerable GPU bottleneck, as there should be, before we get into optimizing the code.

If you have tri-SLI 280s or Xfire 4870x2's, then I fail to see the complaint about midrange CPUs? You can afford the i7, or that SS cooled Yorkfield.

Quote:
And like I said, next gen gpus will be way faster than the improvements we see in i7 as well, so what then?

If that is true, as you state so factually, doesn't it justify the i7 for a present future-proof system (if you can afford it) despite the current disappointment in gaming performance, for which the GPU is mostly to blame?

Or you could bank on such GPUs taking a year to appear, in which case you might hang on to a 775/AM2 system and overhaul your rig when Westmere comes out. But we'll have to same issue about future-proofing.

Quote:
If you tinker with P2s settings, theres no reason why we wont see similar perf from P2, as far as multi gpu setups go. i7 may be ultimately a bit faster, but again, maybe not.

If 3dmark Vantage-CPU or any of numerous core benchmarks is indicative of future game challenges, or if we look at present games where the bottleneck is artificially shifted to the CPU, the Phenom is, as many have indicated, between the Kentsfield and Yorkfield, nowhere near the i7.

But this is expected, isn't it? The P2 was originally on 65nm, and this is mostly a die shrink to 45nm, so its homologue is the Yorkfield, not the 45nm-originating i7.

Nowhere do I say this is certain - just likely - but as well, nowhere should you say with surety that newer GPUs will bottleneck present CPUs. What if DX11 triggers more game thread offloading to future GPUs?
December 30, 2008 1:47:17 PM

First of all, read this, as it debunks i7 as THE solution for multi card setups, and even higher gpus. http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=1&ar...

You do realize what my link means , dont you? I knew this all along, and yet its swept aside. We all knew that scaling on P1 would be killer, but they had to reach higher freqs. Well, now they have, plus higher potential of what we previously had having better HT clocks as well. So, to say its "just" a shrink is ignoring alot of things, potential here.

Simple answer is, theyve tuned thier system now, they elimanted the cold bug, allowing for better freqs where needed, and ultimately scale much much better than Yorkies or Kents. Will they reach i7s perf? Probably not in everything, but things alot of people care about, theyll be priced right, and close enopugh in perf, it wont matter.

If youve kept up on hydra, and hydra type products, youll see that the cpu may have a much greater impact on gaming than previously seen, as we dont know the impact of multi cards using this setup (which I believe AMD also has their own solution for). Im following this closely, as this may be something of a deal breaker in many ways

So, to all those that simply think this iteration is simply a die shrink with higher clocks, look deeper, as we will see more perf than whats been seen in the past, beyond simply clock for clock
December 30, 2008 7:14:30 PM

yipsl said:
Newsflash: AMD fan defends i7 for gaming:

Reports are that an i7 setup with two 4870x2's and a 30" LCD monitor is quite good for gaming. That's not mainstream gaming, mind you, but it's still gaming.

I'll be curious to see if the Phenom II 3.0 part overclocked can unlock two 4870x2's capabilities the way i7 can. I'm always interested in the kind of performance I'll never be able to afford; mainly because it drives tech forward such that the parts I can afford would have been considered a high end rig not too many months ago.

Well, at least my GPU, if not the CPU and monitor. :lol: 



Hun? AMD fan? Wait how the heck? Ok...im starting to think this website is full of little kids or something..whatever but to me i7 is real expensive. if you were talking about me being an amd fan i just go with the fastest but i7 is not being fair on my wallet so i go with seconds. Yes! i have an intel. Also i like Gaming but i personally think having 2 4870's x 2 falls in the enthusiast level more than gamer. At least to all my friends it does.

I posted something about AMD here once but it was playing around since people here freak out when they hear the worrds AMD is better. I know is not but i dont know people are just weird and i enjoy seeing them get mad over simple phrases that have no meaning to me what so ever. Just saying in case you though maybe i don't know lol.
December 30, 2008 9:54:39 PM

I have a question. so Would I gain more performance with an i7 920 with my 2 Radeon's 4870 in crossfire or the Phenom II?
December 30, 2008 10:10:21 PM

Yeah i7 hands down i'm guessing. But is not worth the money if you ask me. Phenom II is enough.
a b à CPUs
December 30, 2008 11:02:55 PM

blackpanther26 said:
I have a question. so Would I gain more performance with an i7 920 with my 2 Radeon's 4870 in crossfire or the Phenom II?


Kinda close. No point in upgrading.
a c 122 à CPUs
December 30, 2008 11:17:44 PM

yipsl said:
Newsflash: AMD fan defends i7 for gaming:

Reports are that an i7 setup with two 4870x2's and a 30" LCD monitor is quite good for gaming. That's not mainstream gaming, mind you, but it's still gaming.

I'll be curious to see if the Phenom II 3.0 part overclocked can unlock two 4870x2's capabilities the way i7 can. I'm always interested in the kind of performance I'll never be able to afford; mainly because it drives tech forward such that the parts I can afford would have been considered a high end rig not too many months ago.

Well, at least my GPU, if not the CPU and monitor. :lol: 


Thats the thing though. A lot of sites are not showing multi GPU setups when testing these CPUs. That doesn't give a full spectrum since multi GPU setups have been getting pretty common these days. You can CF/SLI anything now, even the cheap cards.

spathotan said:
I suppose. Unless roadrunner comes in here and pumps up his i7.


Yea but the biggest difference is the fact that he has one and we don't. He has the experience with the CPU. All we have are results from some sites. Same goes with Phenom II. We don't have anyone here who actually has their hands on one.

Roadrunner may be a bit off, but he has a Core i7 so he can truly say how well it performs.
a c 122 à CPUs
December 30, 2008 11:22:27 PM

blackpanther26 said:
I have a question. so Would I gain more performance with an i7 920 with my 2 Radeon's 4870 in crossfire or the Phenom II?



Not sure yet. I haven't seen any results from any site for multi GPU setups for Phenom II. I know Core i7 does great with multi GPU setups.

So Phenom II may do as well or it may not. We have to wait and see.
December 30, 2008 11:54:51 PM

Quote:
First of all, read this, as it debunks i7 as THE solution for multi card setups, and even higher gpus. http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=g [...] rticID=895

You do realize what my link means , dont you? I knew this all along, and yet its swept aside. We all knew that scaling on P1 would be killer, but they had to reach higher freqs.


Quote:
Note that it's important how you interpret the graphs: this is a performance scaling investigation, not an overclocking scaling investigation. Please understand that the given increases are expressed in comparison to a very low base frequency, not at stock speeds. For instance, the performance scaling of the HT Link frequency may seem very impressive in the 3D benchmark, but if you look more closely, you'll notice that 1GHz is almost enough to maximize performance

They give a clear disclaimer that the conclusion is theoretical, not empirically confirmed. They investigated downward scaling, but you are extrapolating that to upward scaling. Downward scaling is artificial bottlenecking.

They also make no comparison to i7. To know how P2 does with high end graphics, someone has to test it directly.
December 30, 2008 11:57:34 PM

jimmysmitty said:
Thats the thing though. A lot of sites are not showing multi GPU setups when testing these CPUs. That doesn't give a full spectrum since multi GPU setups have been getting pretty common these days. You can CF/SLI anything now, even the cheap cards.



Yea but the biggest difference is the fact that he has one and we don't. He has the experience with the CPU. All we have are results from some sites. Same goes with Phenom II. We don't have anyone here who actually has their hands on one.

Roadrunner may be a bit off, but he has a Core i7 so he can truly say how well it performs.


He may have experience with that i7, but doesn't mean he has the ability to push all available hardware to its limit? does he also have a Phenom 2 940 and the best GPU's (i.e 2 x 4870 x2s)?

the fact of the matter is this, if u have say an e8400 and a HD4870, and a 22" monitor, and ur set up will let u play at your monitor's max resolution without stuttering, than the i7 and phenom 2 are of no importance what so ever.

I started this post, so i feel the need to jump in here. LOOK! the i7 is a GREAT piece of tech! BUT are we all forgetting that it is jumping into AMD's tech book, NO FSB (AMD CPU) integrated mem controller (AMD), single silicon bed (AMD). its basically an AMD Phenom will all the bugs sorted on a 45nm, the i7 is what the Phenom SHOULD have been. but what it all comes down to, whether you be AMD or i7, is this... WHAT DO YOU NEED YOUR PC TO DO! most games will run fine on an e8400 or amd x2 6000 with a good graphics card. it doesn't matter if you're set up gets 30 fps or 130, you're eye can only see around 25..so live with it.

and someone mentioned before, why cant AMD compete at the top end...why bother?? there is something like 90million PC's sold every year, only about 5000 of them are the very top end, thats not really a market worth chasing. I've said before, AMD's turn over is less than intel's RnD budget, so u kind of hope intel's stuff is better. But AMD is playin its hand well, its going after the mainstream, and making cheap CPU's on much more cost effective setups. AMD used to be the underdog winning through, the athlon XP put intel on the back foot. The phenom and the phenom 2 are capable processors. the intel offerings are better, but with a higher price tag.

If AMD keep in the fight, we all win from competition. I personally prefer the current AMD offering, cheap mobo, ram, and cpu and their graphics cards, against intel's over priced option. This is not a market in which it pays to have a long term bias.
December 31, 2008 6:01:57 AM

baldinie said:

and someone mentioned before, why cant AMD compete at the top end...why bother?? there is something like 90million PC's sold every year, only about 5000 of them are the very top end, thats not really a market worth chasing.


Because it sets your pricing.

If you can not compete at the high end and are forced to price youself to be competitive, then you are reliant on your competitor to set your prices.

Since it takes exactly the same amount of money to make a high performing part vs. a low performing part (for a given process), that means that your (less common) highest bin parts are selling for the same price as your competitors (more common) medium to low bin parts. That means higher margins for your competitor. That means he has more money to spend on R&D for the next generation Which makes it all the more harder to compete the next go-round.

It might be a drop in the bucket for chips sold, but it has a *huge* impact in profitability. If you want AMD to stick around, they need to compete at the high end in the markets they are in.

December 31, 2008 6:16:36 AM

Yea, just look at the crap sales of the 4870, and the price it came in at too.
December 31, 2008 6:20:27 AM

perez8434 said:
Hun? AMD fan? Wait how the heck? Ok...im starting to think this website is full of little kids or something..whatever but to me i7 is real expensive. .


You missed the joke. Look at my sig and read my post again.

I did state that it's not mainstream gaming, but only upper level performance where i7 matters at all. It's definitly out of my price range.

perez8434 said:

if you were talking about me being an amd fan i just go with the fastest but i7 is not being fair on my wallet so i go with seconds. Yes! i have an intel. Also i like Gaming but i personally think having 2 4870's x 2 falls in the enthusiast level more than gamer. At least to all my friends it does..


I'm the AMD fan. I like pins on my CPU's, and I like the underdog.

Where GPU's are concerned, AMD is not the underdog, but I still think of it as the ATI division of AMD. I've preferred ATI since the AIW Radeon 8500 128.

perez8434 said:

I posted something about AMD here once but it was playing around since people here freak out when they hear the worrds AMD is better. I know is not but i dont know people are just weird and i enjoy seeing them get mad over simple phrases that have no meaning to me what so ever. Just saying in case you though maybe i don't know lol.


AMD is better at certain price points, but it still depends on what you want to do with your system.

I looked at the Tom's budget gaming rig setup for this month and e-mailed it to a friend who wants me to research an Intel system for him. I told him that I basically went for a similar AMD system in September -- triple core @ 2.4 instead of dual @ 2.66, with the legacy 3870x2 I bought last February being equal much of the time to a 4850.

He doesn't overclock either and isn't convinced he'll need 3 or 4 cores, as he only games (mostly WoW and RTS) and does iTunes (which is optimized for Intel). A week or so ago, I told him his old case with only two fans, and 400 watt Ultra PSU with only 20 amps on the 12 volt rail won't cut it and recommended an Antec Three Hundred case and Antec Neo 550 PSU. I'd earlier sent him the article from Xbit Labs comparing the new budget Intels to older budget Intels plus the Phenom 8750.

Pretty much everything I recommended he upgrade to is in the budget article, but if he did all the stuff I do, I'd have recommended an 8750 with a nice 790GX board instead. I game, but I do video stuff too, and I like my AMD chipsets and IGP for back up or extra monitors.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-2-overclock,21...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e...

I'm an AMD fan but I can recommend Intel when it's the best for what a friend wants. He's upgrading from an older Athlon X2 that's just too slow for WoW with a 7600gs (at least at the resolution of the new monitor he bought).
a c 122 à CPUs
December 31, 2008 7:13:14 AM

baldinie said:
He may have experience with that i7, but doesn't mean he has the ability to push all available hardware to its limit? does he also have a Phenom 2 940 and the best GPU's (i.e 2 x 4870 x2s)?

the fact of the matter is this, if u have say an e8400 and a HD4870, and a 22" monitor, and ur set up will let u play at your monitor's max resolution without stuttering, than the i7 and phenom 2 are of no importance what so ever.

I started this post, so i feel the need to jump in here. LOOK! the i7 is a GREAT piece of tech! BUT are we all forgetting that it is jumping into AMD's tech book, NO FSB (AMD CPU) integrated mem controller (AMD), single silicon bed (AMD). its basically an AMD Phenom will all the bugs sorted on a 45nm, the i7 is what the Phenom SHOULD have been. but what it all comes down to, whether you be AMD or i7, is this... WHAT DO YOU NEED YOUR PC TO DO! most games will run fine on an e8400 or amd x2 6000 with a good graphics card. it doesn't matter if you're set up gets 30 fps or 130, you're eye can only see around 25..so live with it.

and someone mentioned before, why cant AMD compete at the top end...why bother?? there is something like 90million PC's sold every year, only about 5000 of them are the very top end, thats not really a market worth chasing. I've said before, AMD's turn over is less than intel's RnD budget, so u kind of hope intel's stuff is better. But AMD is playin its hand well, its going after the mainstream, and making cheap CPU's on much more cost effective setups. AMD used to be the underdog winning through, the athlon XP put intel on the back foot. The phenom and the phenom 2 are capable processors. the intel offerings are better, but with a higher price tag.

If AMD keep in the fight, we all win from competition. I personally prefer the current AMD offering, cheap mobo, ram, and cpu and their graphics cards, against intel's over priced option. This is not a market in which it pays to have a long term bias.


Actually a lot of sites show that a Core i7 will push newer GPUs, especially in multi GPU setups to beyond their max with current hardware.

As for the Intel copying AMD thing, its been said many times before. Technically Intel has a 80 core naitive CPU, but they don't plan on releasing it anytime soon. Intel also has been working on a IMC since the 486. But they decided not to use them. But I understand what you are saying. Although the thing is that most of the benefits of what AMD has had since K8 are mainly seen in the server market.

And as said before, If AMD cannot compete in the high end they lose a lot of money. Back when K8, Athlon X2, was king they could price their chips as top teir and get nice returns from it. Like the $1K+ Quad FX chips. But now they have to compete in the mid to low end with Intel, and the thing is that Intel can afford it. And AMD cannot. And they know that.

Either way my point about Roadrunner still stands. He has a Core i7. He knows what it can do. We only see what other people say. So he loves the chip. I love my Q6600 cuz I know that it rocks. But no one here really has a Phenom II to show us results and let us know for sure if what the sites are saying is true or just hype.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2008 9:47:39 AM

I love my crappy BE-2400 and nothing can take that away from me... except maybe a ULV Core 2 Duo...

I don't care what sites say about you must buy this graphics cuz you can play this game in HD. I'm playing games like Left 4 Dead or The Witcher on my puny IGP! As long as the gameplay is smooth I don't care! Does it matter if the grass is slighty greener or if your avatar has better hair, I don't care! The whole point games is to be fun, but by the end of all those bills and credit card debt, you can finally see it's not. Why upgrade if it does the job well enough? Sure I might have to upgrade, but why now? I can play Left 4 Dead perfectly well!

Why do you buy this unnecessary stuff? If my computer does what I need it to, I'm fine with it.

Corporations love making money. It's what they do. It doesn't matter if it's Intel, AMD or even Mc Donalds. All they're here for resides in our credit cards and wallets. Loyalty to companies is foolishness.
December 31, 2008 10:08:13 AM

I partly agree with you amdfangirl, but with a caveat. When my 3870x2 died, I had to switch to HD3200 IGP until it was replaced.

I didn't notice much of a difference in look in LOTRO (proves that I wasn't getting Crossfire after all), but when I checked out The Witcher and Oblivion, I had to crank the graphics way down and I just didn't like the look. I certainly wouldn't play Mass Effect on it (the one single player CRPG that interests me right now).

Granted, I won't buy another $450 dual GPU ever again. It didn't live up to the hype and was matched by a sub $200 part six months later. I might even get a basic 4830 as a stopgap for 2009 as it will be faster than the "single" 3870 performance I get with the dual GPU card in LOTRO.

I like eye candy, which is more important in an immersive MMO than in a single player RPG, FPS or RTS. It's fun wandering around areas where the mobs don't see you collecting resources and looking at the scenary and occasionally healing lower levels who bit off more mob than they can chew.

I just agree that there's a bang for the buck sweet spot where spending too much is simply ridiculous. Too much depends on everyone's budget and for some, that $450 I spent 11 months ago is normal every time there's a major refresh.

I never use credit cards for upgrades. I use annual bonus and part of my income tax refund, but I'm back to thinking that a $125 GPU is the best for gaming at my budget. I'd rather pay that every year and a half than waste another $450 all at once on just one part.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2008 10:21:49 AM

Ok, maybe the Witcher with the IGP sucks, but I'm not gonna spend that much on a graphics card, CPU or motherboard granted that in 12 months or so it will be at the bottom of the spectrum.

I normally play bargain basement games which are normally a couple of years old so my hardware can easily take it. If not I'll get an upgrade so I can play them. Depends what you use the computer for.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2008 10:27:30 AM

Bleeding edge is bleeding wallet!

Sure this hyper-consumerism of extreme profits boosts a companies revenue and takes the world outta recession, but think for a moment how these parts are made. Raw materials getting extracted from Mother Earth is required and if we don't change our ways, were most likely to end up with a hyper-inflated economy but a desolate world which is hard to call home.

Spare a thought for everything it takes to power all those quad-fire computers and see how it effects this world.
December 31, 2008 10:34:38 AM

Nice, fangirl and yipsl. But I don't agree with some things you stated, Jimmy. The high-end doesn't matter that much for both AMD and Intel if not for the "halo effect", since it's an almost irrelevant part of their profits.

Also, let's not forget that the overclocking madness on both series of CPUs also doesn't matter for their financial success, since [most] OEMs will only sell them at stock, so it all comes down to what frequency those things will be released at stock, just as to their pricing and availability.

Current Core 2 Quad prices are ridiculous for mid-range offerings, except for the lovely Q6600, I mean, what's up with those Q8200s and Q9300s prices? AMD can fill the gap nicely - supposing they can supply the demand.

Another interesting point is how Deneb will compare against Core "i5". That's the real dealbreaker for both companies. I doubt i5 will beat i7, although Intel might - somehow - "optimize it for desktop".

I can hardly think of a reason why an average person would upgrade to i5 if the performance is far bellow that of i7 and if that person already own a decent Core 2 CPU. The only reason would be "the platform", so it will be something interesting to watch.

Of course there's Intel's marketing, but there's also the global economy current situation - which, by the way, makes me wonder if most people will even bother to look at quad-core CPUs.

Supposing i5 performs just as well as i7 "for us", Intel would cannibalize i7 sales. The 920's price is already very decent, so, i5 either will have to be priced way lower than i7 or i7 will need to remain priced very high, except for one or two models.

Intel will a have a tough fight against its own products and, perhaps, against those of AMD.
a b à CPUs
December 31, 2008 10:44:31 AM

I'm sure we'll see.
December 31, 2008 2:21:12 PM

I'd just like to make a point. Firstly it does cost more to make the higher end stuff, you need better quality parts and silicon and most have more cache...etc. But the fact is, (as someone stated, the world economy isn't exactly bumper atm), if people are only buying, or mainly buying the mid range, and AMD fill that demand while making a profit, Intel will have to lower their price to compete and given their pricing may mean making a loss on the lower end stuff. Or they cant compete on pricing with their current range of stuff, like they did before and had to release the e7xxx. What i'm sayin is, companies make the high end (QX9xxx i7965) then strip them down to make a lower end. If after you do that you're left with a £200 product (i7 920) and AMD release a £150 cpu thats on a par, you're stuffed, either you make a loss to lower the price, or release another line of cheaper stuff. The fact is, very few people are goin to be buying a £600 cpu at this time are they. I think AMD will be fine with their new systems, and when the AM3 comes out in Q1/2 09 i think it could be even closer to the i7, which the phenom 2 is already matching in games.

and to AMDfangirl, you're clearly a gaming purest, who plays for the gameplay not the pretty pictures, which most people dont do anymore.
December 31, 2008 2:40:56 PM

i say stick with what you've got, centering your life around the latest card from ATI/Nvidia or the latest CPU is a sorry and shallow existence
December 31, 2008 7:36:11 PM

good to see some results. however i dont care much for I7 at this point its way to expansive for my buget. even a bare system would cost you a pain in your wallet not even to mention the need of stuff like a tft monitor speakers and a keyboard ddr3 and its motherboard not even to mention its barley a 20% faster then phenom II. it simply dousn't justify the cost in my opinion. phenom II delivers what it should an affordable platform with a speed comparable to the competition. i hope its price will go down atleast €50-100 before 2nd Q 2009 then it has a good chance to become part of my next system. it would make a nice replacement for my old pentium 4 3ghz 2gb ram and geforce 6800 ultra system.
i dont care much about intel or amd i just want to build a system that offers a great gaming experience for an affordable price.
we shall see what 2nd Q 2009 has to offer.
December 31, 2008 8:02:59 PM

dattimr said:
But I don't agree with some things you stated, Jimmy. The high-end doesn't matter that much for both AMD and Intel if not for the "halo effect", since it's an almost irrelevant part of their profits.


I've been saying that for a year. (He won't listen now any more than he has in the past.)

In truth the main purpose for these high-end parts is to be given away to reviewers to pump up the reputation for the midrange parts. It is unlikely that Intel makes enough money on the high end chips that actually ARE sold at full price to pay for the ones they give away.

But apparently AMD is going to die if they don't come out with high-end parts they can give to reviewers. (Or perhaps they're smarter than the average forum poster.)
December 31, 2008 11:20:25 PM

A couple of things...

@amdfangirl, Im glad that integrated graphics and underclocked/undervolted CPUs meet your needs. However, you are the minority (read: one person) who frequents this fourm that applies to. Most of us are just like custom car modder/builders, its all about e-peen and top performance. The reasons vary, some to have top level performance for 1/3 the price, others because they are driven to see what their little piece of silicon can do.

EDIT: I forgot my big finish. Just because it is 'unnecessary stuff' to you doesn't mean it has the same designation for everyone else. Some of us enjoy Crysis for more than the visuals (Although being able to turn up the eye candy is nice :D  )

Next, @baldinie, it costs exactly the same to make an E8600 as it does an E5200, perhaps a bit more for the E5200 by the time youve tested and then disabled part of the cache. All processors come from the same wafers which are produced on the same machine. Its not like they say 'OK, today were gonna make a batch of Celerons' The Celerons come from Core2 dies that couldnt make the cut as Core2 or Pentium Dual-Core. Its a process of the best of the batch are top end, and the rest fall in according to their abilities.
December 31, 2008 11:47:48 PM

Its like a crop. In certain acres on the farm, your yield will be better, wheres in others, a bit thinner, or, like eggs. Size does make a difference when selling and buying eggs, as the larger ones gets premium pricing, yet, it cost the same for all of them.
From the Farm Aid Chronicles heheh
December 31, 2008 11:53:38 PM

WHOO!!!! Im an old hand!!!

O and +1 for the farm analogy JDJ. (I grew up on one BTW)
December 31, 2008 11:58:42 PM

Old "farm" hand? heheh
January 1, 2009 12:21:58 AM

Lol, how did I miss that one?
January 1, 2009 12:27:51 AM

Quote:
In truth the main purpose for these high-end parts is to be given away to reviewers to pump up the reputation for the midrange parts. It is unlikely that Intel makes enough money on the high end chips that actually ARE sold at full price to pay for the ones they give away.

For Intel I would say the purpose is evenly split between drumming up reputation and making money.

They probably "give away" no more than 1000 EE's, if you count all the ES's. They sell 10,000 EE's easily and probably many times that over the product's life cycle.

Since it costs the same to produce an EE as a midrange homologue, the margin is very high. One EE sold could really pay for several giveaways.

By the second stepping, they could probably price all the EE's at midrange and upgrade almost all of the midrange line to EE speeds and still keep up with demand and make money. But they don't do that because the tiered pricing structure somehow makes them more money than flat pricing. For the consumers, we get shafted on stock speeds for the money, though overclocking takes most of that back.

For AMD, the lack of an FX line no doubt hurts their profits directly. While few FX were typically sold, margins were very high. But notice what AMD is doing with Phenom II? They're performing overclocking demos despite not releasing an FX part. They're pumping up reputation for their midrange - exactly the purpose you stated - without having the performance crown.
January 1, 2009 12:52:06 AM

And thats been the main point between P1 and C2D. The performance wasnt completely dominating, its been the ocing (here at Toms, and elsewhere) and the stock clocks. Add in the slight clock for clock advantages Intel has had over AMD, and its bargain basement pricing for AMD, just to move product, all the while, losing marketshare. Its finally changed, as the 940 competes fairly with the 9550 price/perf wise, where theyve never had that until now, and itll truly be a price/perf competition now, and yields are sure to be better, and no more immersion costs for setup, now just dividends from it. Its better, hopefully enough
January 1, 2009 1:02:02 AM

+1 jaydee
January 1, 2009 1:05:35 AM

i agree on that jaydeejohn pehnom II gives good competition for its price. i hope to see some overclock benchmarks from both the 920 and 940 soon. i might go for the 920 if it overclocks almost the same. for its price it a bargain compared to q9450 and q9550. im still thinking about what motherboard to choose my choice fel between Asus M3A78-T and GA-MA790GP-DS4H. the main diffrence is asus has express gate which is a very nice feature in my opinion and overall more features and gigabyte has a dual bios heatpipes and 8 pin power connector on near the voltage regulators asus has a 4 pin connector on that place. so what is better?
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!