Phenom II vs Core i7

Now I hope we can all have a constructive discussion here and lets out our fanboyism aside, I have been an AMD person pretty much all my life and now I have Intel because even though slightly more expensive yields great performance per dollar for me, and while it has been a tough year for AMD they have finally produced what i said they should have done a while ago an Integrated 3D graphics unit with power (4800 series).

The other thing that is also very interesting is that now we are getting to the point where GPU are the bottlenecks in systems, and while one can make an argument that when you scale back to 640 X 480 the Core i7 beats the Phenom NO ONE plays at this resolution, what people wants is high performance and nice looking Games this is where i believe the Phenom 2 beats Intel NOT only in performance but where i live the Intel x58 is so (almost illegally) expensive if Intel don't do something soon it will be Hello Phenom 2.

The fact of the matter is this and NO ONE can deny this the Phenom 2 and Motherboard are cheaper and yield great performance, the Core i7 is just too expensive for any (and some time less) performance.

With the release of Phenom 2 Intel will sharply reduce the x58 prce i would expect.

maybe I am just rambling, what do you guys think

PS// NO FANBOYs please lets have an intelligent debate
60 answers Last reply
More about phenom core
  1. lashton said:

    The other thing that is also very interesting is that now we are getting to the point where GPU are the bottlenecks in systems,

    Games have been GPU limited for years.

    Quote:
    and while one can make an argument that when you scale back to 640 X 480 the Core i7 beats the Phenom NO ONE plays at this resolution, what people wants is high performance and nice looking

    What's also useful is to see which platform would be better in a years time when they go to upgrade their GPU. Benchmarks that are completely GPU limited don't tell you that.

    Quote:

    Games this is where i believe the Phenom 2 beats Intel NOT only in performance but where i live the Intel x58 is so (almost illegally) expensive if Intel don't do something soon it will be Hello Phenom 2.

    The i7 is for the high-end enthusiast market, and the pricing is pretty reasonable for a i7 920 considering it's has the performance of a 6-core Phenom II. Even in these tougher economic times, there will always be someone willing to pay extra for performance.

    Quote:
    The fact of the matter is this and NO ONE can deny this the Phenom 2 and Motherboard are cheaper and yield great performance, the Core i7 is just too expensive for any (and some time less) performance.

    Of course it has to be, otherwise who would buy AMD?

    Quote:
    With the release of Phenom 2 Intel will sharply reduce the x58 prce i would expect.

    No, they reduced the prices of their competitor to the Phenom 2, which is the C2Qs.
  2. ccord909 you said "No, they reduced the prices of their competitor to the Phenom 2, which is the C2Qs.", thats incorrect!

    The c2Q price drop was NOT to counter the Phenoim 2 release, this was done before that annoucement, as I said the Phenom will force the (buggy_) X58 motherboard down in price, also the AMD AM3 Dragonb system does seem superior to intels X58 face it intel dont have anything on the onbaord 4800 series, the phenom 2 is AMDs new prefab meaning they can make more per wafer yileding lower price thats what AMD has
  3. Your missing the point that AM3 Deneb still wont be able to compete with i7, more like the Q9650 and the QX9770. Prices of X58 wont drop anytime soon because the motherboards companies want to milk the fastest platform out now and that will be for a good while.
  4. Well, I can see this going down a spiral very fast.

    As I see it, the GPU does bottleneck Core i7 a lot. Its shown wince the multiGPU setups scale better than anything else clock per clock. Not sure if it does bottleneck in a Phenom II system since they haven't done any yet.

    Anywho. If you want to really get into it you have to explore every avenue. Don't just do one card. Hell I have seen a lot of people pick up two sheap 4830s and CF them. thats a multicard setup thats betetr on a i7 than anything else (that has proven) right now.

    As for the res, either one side wants to use high res or the other side low res and the the other side switches to the standardized res (which is 1600x1200/1680x1050). My own thoughts are use the res that is most common right now to see which one will perform best for you, if you are doing multi GPU setups then hope to God that they tested those CPUs with more than one GPU because that will make a difference and stop trying to say why one is better than the other based on platform. TBH platform means nothing right now. I love ATI cards because they are fast and cheap. But the best performance cards right now are nVidias. While over priced they do perform the best overall. So that blows the Dragon system out of the water.

    Overall performace of Phenom II does not put it in the Core i7 range. It still can't fully beat C2Q Yorkfield and when it does beat C2Q Kentsfield its not very impressive. Overall Core i7 is a better CPU and especially in multi GPU games since we have yet to see a SLI/CF setup for Phenom II.

    There. Thats my rantings.
  5. Just because it was released after a price drop doesn't mean Intel didn't know that Phenom II would be just as slow (and I say slow because the i7 is faster). It just means that they beat AMD to the punch in regards to price/performance. Suddenly the Phenom II doesn't look as valuable, and the i7 is exactly where you'd expect it to be. Funny, just a few months ago I'd have to drop $300 on a Q6600. Now I drop $295 on a i7 920. When I first built my C2D E6600 I paid $300 for the chip and $300 for 2GB DDR2-800. I paid just over $120 for 6GB DDR3-1600...I'm not complaining!
  6. jimmysmitty said:
    Overall performace of Phenom II does not put it in the Core i7 range..

    That depends on the workload, simple type workload and i7 is very fast. Complex type of workload and PhII is very fast. In games you need to handle complex type of workloads. Other type of applications it is best to handle simple type of workloads.
  7. Why do we keep coming back to this TOPIC. Theres basically 2 rule of thumbs for making your CPU decision.

    1. If you got money, then i7
    2. If you don't have that much money, then pick C2Q 9x50 or PhenomII X4 or X3

    No need to bring up platform or what type of SLI or Crossfire setup. No need for benchmarks links, overclocking links, etc. Every AMD and Intel user will unaminously agree that i7 is the best and most expensive setup right now.

    It all comes down to the amount of money a person is willing to spend.
  8. kassler said:
    That depends on the workload, simple type workload and i7 is very fast. Complex type of workload and PhII is very fast. In games you need to handle complex type of workloads. Other type of applications it is best to handle simple type of workloads.


    Really.

    What are you talking about by complex? All HPC benchmarks I've seen (quite complex) put the i7 FAR ahead of phenom II. In fact, the only benchmarks I've seen that show Phenom II as having any hope at all of keeping up with i7 are things that are bottlenecked by other components. Like the graphics card.
  9. The i7 is way faster than the PII or any other chip period in anything except gaming. For the price the PII's are great. The're good at other applications and are also great for a gaming system.

    .
  10. cjl said:
    Really.

    What are you talking about by complex? All HPC benchmarks I've seen (quite complex) put the i7 FAR ahead of phenom II.

    No HPC data is data processed in a very controlled way. Calculations done is complex but the code is very optimized and controlled.
  11. And kassler's proof? Someone on XS pointed out that K10's cache is potentially designed for complex operations. Nothing was mentioned about the core, nothing was mentioned about the actual number crunching performance, nothing was mentioned about the pre-fetch, nothing was mentioned about the cache's latency, but just the design of the cache.

    EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention, according to kassler, HPC calculations are not complex at all, because AMD's CPU should ALWAYS be in the front in terms of complex calculation. So what's considered as a complex calculation? Look for the minimum frame rate in any given game. If AMD's CPU minimum frame rate is larger than Intel's minimum frame rate, then that's a complex calculation.
  12. lashton said:
    ccord909 you said "No, they reduced the prices of their competitor to the Phenom 2, which is the C2Qs.", thats incorrect!

    The c2Q price drop was NOT to counter the Phenoim 2 release, this was done before that annoucement, as I said the Phenom will force the (buggy_) X58 motherboard down in price, also the AMD AM3 Dragonb system does seem superior to intels X58 face it intel dont have anything on the onbaord 4800 series, the phenom 2 is AMDs new prefab meaning they can make more per wafer yileding lower price thats what AMD has


    Following your argument as best I can, yes AMD's 45nm process seems to be a good one, and yes they can make more per wafer except that Denebs have more L3 cache which makes their die size larger, and that reduces the shrink advantage. Not that anybody minds more cache since that increases performance for the most part :). But AMD is also selling the X3 and the Propus (?) versions which have one defective core or a defective portion of the L3 cache, so their yields are not that fantastic either.

    But I disagree that P2 is having any effect on X58 mobo prices - that's a function of how many i7's get sold (and Intel is saying only 2-3% will be i7 for this year, I believe). Right now the mobo is still new and so enthusiasts and 'early' adopters are paying the pioneer premium :). I'd say by midsummer prices will have come down by a fair amount.
  13. leo2kp said:
    Just because it was released after a price drop doesn't mean Intel didn't know that Phenom II would be just as slow (and I say slow because the i7 is faster). It just means that they beat AMD to the punch in regards to price/performance. Suddenly the Phenom II doesn't look as valuable, and the i7 is exactly where you'd expect it to be. Funny, just a few months ago I'd have to drop $300 on a Q6600. Now I drop $295 on a i7 920. When I first built my C2D E6600 I paid $300 for the chip and $300 for 2GB DDR2-800. I paid just over $120 for 6GB DDR3-1600...I'm not complaining!


    I read somewhere that the non-i7 price drops were planned by Intel back in September or so, well before Shanghai or Deneb appeared. These were just prescheduled price drops. However they forced AMD to drop the P2 prices in response.

    I could have sworn I saw the i920 for $229 a few days ago on Newegg. Today it's $289...
  14. Just because Phenom II is now competitive with I7 in games does not mean I7 and its platform should drop in cost. Phenom II is just now competing with C2Q, I7 is far above either platform. Most people don't use their computer just to run games, I doubt the majority of PC owners even do much gaming on them. I7 is far better then K10 in the server side of things, its also far superior in many applications and multitasking. Taking something such as a game that's limited by the GPU is a poor argument as to why the I7 isn't much better than a Phenom II.
  15. yomamafor1 said:
    And kassler's proof? Someone on XS pointed out that K10's cache is potentially designed for complex operations. Nothing was mentioned about the core, nothing was mentioned about the actual number crunching performance, nothing was mentioned about the pre-fetch, nothing was mentioned about the cache's latency, but just the design of the cache.

    EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention, according to kassler, HPC calculations are not complex at all, because AMD's CPU should ALWAYS be in the front in terms of complex calculation. So what's considered as a complex calculation? Look for the minimum frame rate in any given game. If AMD's CPU minimum frame rate is larger than Intel's minimum frame rate, then that's a complex calculation.


    LOL - it's fairly obvious Kassler doesn't know what he's talking about. First of all, I think he means complex instructions, not data. And he's possibly referring to the fact that K8s and up use 3 complex decoders vs. Core2 and up using 3 simple + 1 complex. Unfortunately for him and AMD, most software in use today is mainly integer, and that's where Core2 and up shine.

    Aren't games mostly integer code?

    HPC is mainly scientific and engineering complex calculations, using lots of array and vector computations like in fluid dynamics, finite element analysis, signal processing, etc. I would think nowadays those would be coded for SSE, where Intel again shines bright.
  16. kassler said:
    No HPC data is data processed in a very controlled way. Calculations done is complex but the code is very optimized and controlled.


    Yep - can't have that code go out of control, start thrashing around and possibly injure a bystander :)

    "Down, you vicious code, you! Down boy!"
  17. Depends what you're doing.
    My home office/workstation computer is an i7 920, stock, it's awesome at what it does. Cost me about 1300, as it's not a gaming rig (built end Jan).
    My gaming rig is a P2 940 OC'd, it's awesome at what it does and cost me about the same 1300. It considerably better in gaming benchs than my i7 (built early Jan, day 940 came out). Though probably 1600 now I add WC, didn't have to, but I wanted to :0

    Now I could have built one 2600 i7 that smashes both of those above. But than all my eggs would be in one basket, which turns out bad most of the time. So I like them both, each has it's uses and should be around for awhile now.
  18. In the midrange P ll is a clear winner for gaming .

    You get the quad core advantages , lower system prices and a cpu that throttles back to 800MHz meaning power saving advantages too.

    But if you are a hard core gamer running two top end gfx cards then Ci7 starts to make some sense . Even then its not worth the extra IMO , but some people pay ferraris even though they still not allowed to drive faster in them .
    If you ahve an i7 and a single gfx card , for gaming , you have just wasted money .


    The advantages of i7 in encoding etc are real thats for sure , but I would never sit watching my computer perform a task like that anyway . Id be up and getting a coffee or making a phone call ..or
    It makes no difference if it takes a computer 3 minutes of 4 minutes to do a task like that .
    I wont be back for 10 minutes anyway

    My personal choice is that I wouldnt pay extra for the experience
  19. lashton said:
    The fact of the matter is this and NO ONE can deny this the Phenom 2 and Motherboard are cheaper and yield great performance, the Core i7 is just too expensive for any (and some time less) performance.

    With the release of Phenom 2 Intel will sharply reduce the x58 prce i would expect.


    DDR3 is coming down in price fast.

    Corsair has a 3 x 2 GB 9-9-9-24 product for $164.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145222

    Patriot has a 2 x 2 GB DDR 3 with the same timings for $100.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220371

    sort of wierd because you need 3 of them.

    i've been taking some classes in particles & Fluids in 3D Max & Maya recently, and boy do they eat up the system resources. making me realize that a Q9550 is limited and there may come a time to get something faster.

    so then, what are my options -
    * Core i7 940 for a 25% to 40% increase in speed. not really worth the trouble.
    * 2 x Xeon 5410, which would mean buying registered ECC RAM. 5410's are about $300, they're like a 2.33 GHz version of the Q9550, except they can co-exist with a second CPU on a server/workstation MB like this
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182130

    * 2 x Opteron version of the Phenom 2.

    but, forgetting about what might be my next workstation, i like the Phenom 2's. i got an Opteron 175 system, dual core. so the Phenom 2 is like a system with 2 of those, but maybe faster. that's good.

    Intel is supposed to come out with the Xeon version of Core i7 in the "first half". so, i hope AMD comes out with the dual-proc version of the Phenom 2.

    that would be one way for them to compete with Intel, beating them to the punch on a dual-Opteron/Phenom 2 system. it AMD releases that first, it might be faster than a single Core i7 extreme, so AMD would take the performance crown back for about 2 weeks.

    when Intel comes out with the dual processor version of the Core i7 - that will be nice.
  20. Outlander_04 said:
    In the midrange P ll is a clear winner for gaming .

    You get the quad core advantages , lower system prices and a cpu that throttles back to 800MHz meaning power saving advantages too.

    But if you are a hard core gamer running two top end gfx cards then Ci7 starts to make some sense . Even then its not worth the extra IMO , but some people pay ferraris even though they still not allowed to drive faster in them .

    If you have an i7 and a single gfx card , for gaming , you have just wasted money .

    ...

    My personal choice is that I wouldnt pay extra for the experience



    I AGREE!
  21. I just spent less than $320 for a Gigabyte board, Phenom 920, and 4 gig of Crucial 1066 memory, with timings of 7. With my old BFG 8800GTS 512 OC GPU, it hits 14,800 in CPU mark 06, (at factory overclock, processor stock 2.8) and seems pretty darn quick in just about everything I do. I'll tinker around with it this weekend, push the clocks up on the Processor and GPU, see what happens. The old GTS (G92) card overclocks like a mad demon, these had to be one the best overclocking GPU's ever made..... if the CPU will go a ways, well I'll just have to see.

    I could have went i7, it's not like I don't have the money, and I looked at them for a long while.
    Long story short, for the money, I just don't see how anyone could complain about the new Phenoms.
    Sure, the i7 is faster. But I don't think for the value, it is any "better".
  22. fazers_on_stun said:
    LOL - it's fairly obvious Kassler doesn't know what he's talking about. First of all, I think he means complex instructions, not data.

    No complex situations
  23. What the heck is a "complex situation" supposed to mean?
  24. cjl said:
    What the heck is a "complex situation" supposed to mean?


    My guess is - only Kassler knows, and he ain't telling :)

    However from the prior posts in this thread, he may be alluding to data alignment in the L3 cache. I saw some discusson along those lines in AMDZone a few months ago. Forgot the details unfortunately, but it may be that K8 and up handle misaligned data (i.el, not falling on cache boundaries) faster than Core2. Hopefully somebody more knowledgeable than me or Kassler can fill us in on this..
  25. If so, it must happen fairly rarely - you basically never see a case where Phenom II (or any AMD K8 or newer) outruns a Core 2 or i7.
  26. look i like AMD but the PII does not beat i7, the PII is a brilliant CPU but its not an i7
  27. and if i was to pick one it would be the PII
  28. cjl said:
    What the heck is a "complex situation" supposed to mean?


    When AMD has an upperhand in the benchmarks. Programs such as Sandra memory bandwidth and SPECfp_rate were considered "complex programs". However ever since Core i7 debuted, those programmers got the bribery from Intel and "de-complex" those programs for Intel's Nehalem. So now the only "complex programs" are when Nehalem gets bogged down by sophisticated codes, such as gaming at high resolution with Nvidia GPU.
  29. accord99 said:
    Games have been GPU limited for years.


    What's also useful is to see which platform would be better in a years time when they go to upgrade their GPU. Benchmarks that are completely GPU limited don't tell you that.


    The i7 is for the high-end enthusiast market, and the pricing is pretty reasonable for a i7 920 considering it's has the performance of a 6-core Phenom II. Even in these tougher economic times, there will always be someone willing to pay extra for performance.


    Of course it has to be, otherwise who would buy AMD?


    No, they reduced the prices of their competitor to the Phenom 2, which is the C2Qs.


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

    I recently installed a gigabyte mobo and phenom II 940 with 800mhz ram and... at least according SI Sandra 2009 benchmarking... its overall performance surpasses the i7 920 in nearly all areas.
  30. cjl said:
    What the heck is a "complex situation" supposed to mean?

    Intel likes when memory is read or written in long trains, if memory is scattered in tiny pieces and threads are reading and writing small tiny memory parts the situation gets "complex" for the CPU.
  31. Somehow, I doubt it, considering that i7 beats Phenom II in both memory bandwidth and latency.

    bmullan: what kind of results are you getting?
  32. kassler said:
    Intel likes when memory is read or written in long trains, if memory is scattered in tiny pieces and threads are reading and writing small tiny memory parts the situation gets "complex" for the CPU.


    LOL.... you really are clueless aren't you?

  33. bmullan said:
    ==================================

    I recently installed a gigabyte mobo and phenom II 940 with 800mhz ram and... at least according SI Sandra 2009 benchmarking... its overall performance surpasses the i7 920 in nearly all areas.


    Well.... first its a synthetic benchmark. Not good for much more than seeing how well a CPU performs in it itself as real world apps work very differently.

    Second, I really wish I knew how a Phenom II could beat a Core i7 in memory bandwidth considering most every site is showing Core i7 blowing everything else out of the water in that area.

    kassler said:
    Intel likes when memory is read or written in long trains, if memory is scattered in tiny pieces and threads are reading and writing small tiny memory parts the situation gets "complex" for the CPU.


    Um. Ok. I am guessing that thats your take on it when in the end Core i7 may be based on Core its still has a lot in it new and from what I have seen it doesn't seem to mind pushing "complex situations" (whatever those may be) easily.

    Hell if you have a PH II please do a multi GPU benchmark and then get a Core i7 920 then clock it to 3GHz and do the same and post the results. I would love to see how PH II outshines Core i7 in that very "complex situation".
  34. kassler said:
    Intel likes when memory is read or written in long trains, if memory is scattered in tiny pieces and threads are reading and writing small tiny memory parts the situation gets "complex" for the CPU.

    Hokaaaay! :pt1cable:
  35. jimmysmitty said:
    Hell if you have a PH II please do a multi GPU benchmark and then get a Core i7 920 then clock it to 3GHz and do the same and post the results. I would love to see how PH II outshines Core i7 in that very "complex situation".


    Average FPS don't mean **** in games, you need to check the lowest fps values. PhII will win on those areas
  36. and u kno this as a fact?

    And actually i totally disagree...
    Average fps is the best rating for performance in games cause its the AVERAGE u get while gaming. It alleviates the extremes of the high and low fps giving a general value of how the whole gaming experience will perform. Not just the extreme low cases

    And "complex situation" u take something today?!
  37. cjl said:
    If so, it must happen fairly rarely - you basically never see a case where Phenom II (or any AMD K8 or newer) outruns a Core 2 or i7.


    Yes, it seems Intel fixed that problem with i7 as well. So Kassler's statement is out of date, if that is what he meant.
  38. Kassler, let me ask you. What does "48-way associative cache" mean?
  39. Minimum framerates are meaningless if you don't have a log of the framerates over time. How do you know that there wasn't only a single drop in framerate the whole time? Same goes for max framerates, there could have been half a second where the person looked at the sky and that's it. If the average AND min is low, then it's likely that the framerate didn't exceed the min by much throughout the benchmark run.
  40. kassler said:
    Average FPS don't mean **** in games, you need to check the lowest fps values. PhII will win on those areas


    Did I anywhere in that statement say average FPS? No. I said post the results.

    And no you cannot just use the low FPS. Hell the low FPS can be more than compensated for if the CPU can feed the. I.E. if one CPU with the same GPU gets 150 max FPS and 40 low FPS while the other gets 120 max FPS and 50 low FPS that extra 30 high FPS will be more than enough to cancel out the low FPS.

    And to truly test a CPU you set the res to its lowest possible with no quality so that the CPU becomes the main factor. That shows a true CPU gaming performance.
  41. Quote:
    I upgraded to the i7 from an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400. The main reasons I made the upgrade were:

    1. Low power consumption (significantly lower than a Q6600 which is about $100 cheaper than the i7)
    2. 8 logical cores available (quad core + hyper threading)
    3. The ability to play cutting edge games that take advantage of all 8 cores.
    4. The potential ability to load share between CPU & GPU once Windows 7 is released.

    The upgrade might have been a bit premature, as the primary reason to buy an I7 processor won't be possible until Windows 7 is released. Windows 7 will allow load sharing between GPU (graphics card) and CPU. This will enable some really nice performance gains in games, or other graphic intensive applications like video editing software. Allegedly, games like Crysis will get a 20-30 percent performance increase. However, I heard that before when Windows stated that Vista would provide significant performance gains for DirectX10 games, which has not proved to be the case.

    Regardless, the i7 920 is truly an amazing CPU. I've yet to experiment with overclocking much, but I do have it running at 3.12ghz stable and with a core temperature of 41C at idle and around 60C under load. I'll likely push things further in the coming weeks, and I'll give updates on temperatures and performance when I do.

    Combining this card with two 4870hd 512mb graphics cards in Crossfire mode produced a 3DMark06 score of just over 19,000! That is a 5,000 point gain from my previous rig, and is in about the top 4% of all systems out there. That is pretty phenomenal performance. In Crysis with all settings at very high and DX10, I average over 50 frames at 1980x1200. This CPU is a gaming beast.

    If you plan to overclock this card even a little, invest in an aftermarket heat sink and some Arctic Silver thermal compound. The heatsink provided with the retail package is small and ineffective at cooling an overclocked card. I recommend this Zalman Cpu Cooler for moderate overclocking. It is a very quite and very effective fan.

    If your in the market for a 'future-proof' processor, this is a great option at a reasonable price point. The ceiling speed of processors is growing increasingly unimportant as multi-thread programing become the norm in both games and applications. You could spend a lot more for a higher GHZ CPU, but you're not really gaining as much performance as the jump from 2 to 4 cores, and then quad core to octo core. This processor will eat anything you throw at it and come back for more. Just make sure your mother board supports i7 chips before you buy one.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001H5T7LK?ie=UTF8&tag=burtoa-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B001H5T7LK


    Excellent job on the cut and paste Chris. This makes what 20 threads with the same exact post? :pfff:
  42. We know i7 is simply a more efficent processer at this point, I don't think any non-AMD fanboy will argue that point. The issue comes with gaming performance.

    As i've explained before (and now, everyone else seems to be too...), the majority of setups your PC will use are GPU limited. As such, any CPU strong enough to drive the GPU is question will result in almost the same FPS (before taking memory/mobo into account, which does make AMD/Intel comparisions harder to do). For most single GPU solutions, C2Q, PII, and i7 all can (usually) drive a single card to its maximum. However, for multi-GPU setups, i7 in particular shows extraordinary gains over the competition (which makes perfect sense, as the i7 has the power to drive two GPU's, and the GPU bottleneck point is significantly raised).

    My big question about PII is this: The fact i7 does so much better in dual-GPU solutions shows that PII simply isn't powerful enough to drive a CF/SLI setup to its highest potential (and is CPU limited by PII). If that is indeed the case (and all the dual GPU comparisions point to this being true), why buy a PII for gaming, knowing it can't even drive this generations high end setups?

    Granted, PII is a great step up for those already with compatable motherboards, but given how low the price diffrence between i7 and PII is, is see 0 reason to build a new system with PII at this point.
  43. gamerk316 said:
    We know i7 is simply a more efficent processer at this point, I don't think any non-AMD fanboy will argue that point. The issue comes with gaming performance.

    As i've explained before (and now, everyone else seems to be too...), the majority of setups your PC will use are GPU limited. As such, any CPU strong enough to drive the GPU is question will result in almost the same FPS (before taking memory/mobo into account, which does make AMD/Intel comparisions harder to do). For most single GPU solutions, C2Q, PII, and i7 all can (usually) drive a single card to its maximum. However, for multi-GPU setups, i7 in particular shows extraordinary gains over the competition (which makes perfect sense, as the i7 has the power to drive two GPU's, and the GPU bottleneck point is significantly raised).

    My big question about PII is this: The fact i7 does so much better in dual-GPU solutions shows that PII simply isn't powerful enough to drive a CF/SLI setup to its highest potential (and is CPU limited by PII). If that is indeed the case (and all the dual GPU comparisions point to this being true), why buy a PII for gaming, knowing it can't even drive this generations high end setups?

    Granted, PII is a great step up for those already with compatable motherboards, but given how low the price diffrence between i7 and PII is, is see 0 reason to build a new system with PII at this point.



    I completely agree with your point, but no one what's to talk
    about phenom II not being strong enough to run a multi-card
    set-up.
  44. jed said:
    I completely agree with your point, but no one what's to talk
    about phenom II not being strong enough to run a multi-card
    set-up.

    But they were GOING to :D

    If you already have a PII compatable mobo, thats the way to go. Otherwise, spend the extra $50 and get i7.
  45. ^$50 difference? You've been toggling the sort button haven't you?

    P2 is simply better for gaming, minimum fps counts. Why? Well, say if the Core I7 had an average of 60fps over 60 seconds, it has a minimum fps of 25 and a max of 160. Then another CPU is tested for the same period of time but has a minimum of 40, an average of 55 and a max of 70.

    Now which one would you go for?
  46. As fpr gpus being limited in most used res, 16x10, thats just NOT true, and Im finding it an excuse to cover i7 lately. Look at the arstech article, where it shows a 940 beating a i7 920 and holding its own against the 965 even in the 4 games tested, and it was on a 12x10 res. Tired of hearing that gpus are soooo bottlenecked.
    Look here http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2009/02/phenom-ii-scaling.ars/6
    None of these games are truly maxxed out by the cpu, tho CoD4 looks close. The P2 wins them all against the i7 920
  47. Helloworld_98 said:
    ^$50 difference? You've been toggling the sort button haven't you?

    P2 is simply better for gaming, minimum fps counts. Why? Well, say if the Core I7 had an average of 60fps over 60 seconds, it has a minimum fps of 25 and a max of 160. Then another CPU is tested for the same period of time but has a minimum of 40, an average of 55 and a max of 70.

    Now which one would you go for?



    You know what's missing here?

    Evidence.
  48. Check my link. i7 doesnt dominate there for gaming, quite the opposite actually. Also, whats not being said is, i7 is using turbo, so a simple direct IPC comparison isnt so simple anymore. So, in essence, Intels stock clocks are truly higher than listed, which is very deceptive when making such comparisons. It only makes sense that when it comes to minimum fps, turbo kicks in for sure, thus lifting them. I would like to see a gaming comparison with i7 vs P2 using mid res'/single card setups, with i7 NOT using turbo. But, even so, at "stock", in my link, P2 wins all 4 games there. By as much as 30%
  49. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Check my link. i7 doesnt dominate there for gaming, quite the opposite actually. Also, whats not being said is, i7 is using turbo, so a simple direct IPC comparison isnt so simple anymore. So, in essence, Intels stock clocks are truly higher than listed, which is very deceptive when making such comparisons. It only makes sense that when it comes to minimum fps, turbo kicks in for sure, thus lifting them. I would like to see a gaming comparison with i7 vs P2 using mid res'/single card setups, with i7 NOT using turbo. But, even so, at "stock", in my link, P2 wins all 4 games there. By as much as 30%



    Then JDJ tell everyone here if phenom II is so good for games,
    why when you SLI/CROSSFIRE it falls off big time compared to
    i7
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance Phenom Product