Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Phenom II X4 955 BE or i7 920?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Phenom
  • Intel i7
  • Processors
  • Compatibility
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 29, 2009 6:31:19 PM

Whats better for gaming-Phenom II X4 955 BE or Core i7 920? Which ones more futureproof? I need the processor to last at least 3-5 years....will AMD processors then be AM3 compatible? And will Sandy Bridge be compatible with LGA 1366?

More about : phenom 955 920

a b à CPUs
May 29, 2009 6:49:14 PM

for future proof i would get 920
May 29, 2009 7:13:53 PM

For gaming you probably won't see a big difference between either. The 955 is AM3 compatible, and idk if SandyBridge will be LGA1366.

Both of them are pretty much brand new sockets so upgradability should not be a huge issue. Core i7 is slightly better on normal tasks, but overall you should be fine with either of them for gaming.
Related resources
May 30, 2009 1:56:51 AM

how man threads does the 955 run? i7 does 8.
May 30, 2009 3:12:07 AM

My dual Opteron has 8 threads and I rarely use more than four or five of them.
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2009 4:19:11 AM

if you are talking about threads why not bring up a dual xeon build, 16 threads, you'll never use them, but you will have them
May 30, 2009 4:35:39 AM

madass said:
how man threads does the 955 run? i7 does 8.


I'm going to go ahead and assume the same since they both have Hyper threading which AMD invented. :p 
May 30, 2009 8:45:56 AM

Quote:
All benchies show 955 is the high res choice, trust me it smokes all games.



coming from someone with a single 4870, lol.
May 30, 2009 8:57:05 AM

thanks
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2009 12:57:54 PM

those 5.9's are hella outdated.
May 30, 2009 3:31:08 PM

Jeez Soldier37 whats your problem? and he was making fun of ATI not Nvidia , and even if he is an Intel fanboy you sound like an AMD fanboy since your protecting AMD with such fervor!
May 30, 2009 5:00:51 PM

^+1 AMD used to be the best, but right now its literally right behind Intel.
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2009 5:34:27 PM

If you can wait until the i5 comes out the Phenom IIs might be such a bargain (AMD price cuts to compete) that second best on benchmarking won't matter much.
May 30, 2009 6:53:01 PM

Well... the fact that you spent so much money on everything else and not just your CPU would be why you can play games so well. <.<
May 30, 2009 6:53:21 PM

jeffredo said:
If you can wait until the i5 comes out the Phenom IIs might be such a bargain (AMD price cuts to compete) that second best on benchmarking won't matter much.


Agreed. +1
May 30, 2009 7:20:06 PM

I'd swing the i920, if you're interested in anything beyond games. If it's just games/internet then flip a coin between the two. I like AMD because they've done right by their customers by letting the new chips be back compatible with old motherboards. Since I always upgrade & tweak my rigs over time, amd's attitude jives well with me at the moment.
May 30, 2009 7:29:54 PM

If you want the fastest processor, go with the I7 920... but if you want to save about $100~150, go with PII 955.
May 30, 2009 8:07:09 PM

^ nope if you want the fastest consumer available processor then get the i7 975 EE, and a phase change cooler.

@soldier37, the 955 doesn't own, you just have low expectations when it comes to gameplay.
May 30, 2009 10:01:40 PM

I agree with you Psycho , he tried to make Helloworld look like an Intel fanboy... whichc he didnt even try to be.
May 30, 2009 10:38:39 PM

While I agree he seems to be a pretty big AMD fanboy, this site needs a few people like him to balance out the very high amount of Intel fanboys. Honestly, the difference between the two is so tiny and the only place you're going to notice it is audio/video encoding, and syntehtic benchmarks and that has been proven time and time again. If you aren't one of those people who has to spend about $100-$200 more for your proc/mobo just to win in synthetic benchmarks and be able to say that you have the very best (even if it is only by a little), then the PII 955 might be for you. but if you are one of the afforementioned people, then sure, get the i7 920 and be happy with it. I just can't stand people telling everyone that they need to spend the extra money so they can have the "very best" intel proc when the AMD works just as well in everything except audio/video encoding and synthtic benchies (which shouldn't even be a big deal anyway, I mean what's the point? It's a SYNTHETIC benchmark, it doesn't reflect real life tasks at all so I don't see why you have to have the top score), and has been recorded outperforming the i7 920 in gaming multiple times. Right now, if you don't use audio/video encoding on your computer on a daily basis, the PII 955 is a much better value.
May 30, 2009 10:50:02 PM

^+1 Yay , I didnt have to point every thing out some one did it or me. i'm to lazy to think of too much stuff like that.
May 31, 2009 1:45:34 AM

Gin Fushicho said:
I'm going to go ahead and assume the same since they both have Hyper threading which AMD invented. :p 


The Phenom has Hyper-threading? AMD invented? AMD invented Hypertransport ( QPI ), meaning they put a memory controller on the die which ran at a seperate frequency from the northbridge, allowing it to access the CPU to access the RAM w/o going through and waiting on the northbridge. As much as I want to believe in AMD again, the phenom has the same underlying architecture introduced in the Athlon 64x2, just adapted for four cores. throw in a focus on L3 ( vastly slower than L2 ) cache meant for use with multiple applications rather than singular intensive apps IE gaming and you've got a CPU that will be easily beaten game wise by a Core 2 Quad at the same frequency ( Focus on large amounts of L2 cache, same underlying structure as the i7, just w/o hyper-threading ) Intel adapted ideas AMD implemented and did it better. Adding 200mhz does not a flagship make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
May 31, 2009 3:16:09 AM

mcnuggetofdeath said:
The Phenom has Hyper-threading? AMD invented? AMD invented Hypertransport ( QPI ), meaning they put a memory controller on the die which ran at a seperate frequency from the northbridge, allowing it to access the CPU to access the RAM w/o going through and waiting on the northbridge. As much as I want to believe in AMD again, the phenom has the same underlying architecture introduced in the Athlon 64x2, just adapted for four cores. throw in a focus on L3 ( vastly slower than L2 ) cache meant for use with multiple applications rather than singular intensive apps IE gaming and you've got a CPU that will be easily beaten game wise by a Core 2 Quad at the same frequency ( Focus on large amounts of L2 cache, same underlying structure as the i7, just w/o hyper-threading ) Intel adapted ideas AMD implemented and did it better. Adding 200mhz does not a flagship make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading



*Facepalm* Thanks for correcting me. But be careful with your words as you are starting to sound a little like a fanboy.
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2009 3:58:01 AM

stop posting those damn pics, it is so annoying.
May 31, 2009 3:59:02 AM

lol. maybe a little. I just miss the old AMD, they went corporate and stopped chasing the performance crown. Add the loss of market share to the mix and you get less capital, and therefore less money for R&D. So they also lost the lower power segment when Intel hit 45nm a full year before AMD. They're trying to play catchup now and i hope they make it because nothing drives the market like competition. Its just hard coming back from years of choosing to settle for second. An unlocked multiplier and new manufacturing process dont make an old chip into a title contender overnight. Offhand i cant recall the codename, but AMD supposedly has a brand new micro architecture slated for 2010.
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2009 6:47:29 AM




First, stop posting the damn screenshots. We get the idea already. You have a 955, and you love it.

Second, for future reference, there's a button on your keyboard. It's just above the insert and delete keys, to the right and above the backspace key. See it? It says "Print Screen". This button will stop people from laughing at you when you use a camera to take pictures of your monitor in order to get a screenshot. In addition, if you have Vista, you can use the snipping tool, found under "accessories" in the start menu.
May 31, 2009 7:29:54 AM

It's okay soldier, you don't have to defend your rig or AMD. Facts are:

1) Intel makes a faster processor for most all benchmarks except several games and those games are within 1-2 frames usually.

2) AMD is WAYYYY cheaper than Intel. When you buy Intel you not only buy the $279 processor but also the $200+ mobo and triple channel memory that goes with it. Good luck on that.

3) AMD has let it be known that AM3 is their future and has stayed backwards compatible from AM2/AM2+/AM3. You should be fine.

When it comes down to it, all those benchmarks are simply that, BENCHMARKS! Think about real world use and if you would still be happy with a SECOND PLACE platform and have a couple hundred in your pocket or put that towards a nicer video card which will definitely have more impact on actual FPS.

You will be fine with AMD for games in my opinion, but if you want the best and want to let it be known that you bought the best then get Intel. You can't knock their performance but you can knock the real-world price/performance for what you will be using it for.

I'd would get the AMD 955 BE, and use the money to get a nicer video card that will definitely give you more than 1-2 FPS difference.

Remember....you do have a budget. Be smart.
May 31, 2009 7:39:43 AM

^+1 wonderful suggestion. Video cards will always deliver more FPS then anything else.
May 31, 2009 7:41:44 AM

^ except in FSX and GTAIV.
May 31, 2009 12:59:30 PM

Quote:
I cant tell Intel beats me from my end. I play every game maxed settings 1920 x 1200 including Crysis just fine! Plus I saved money. Core I7 isnt all that like you all think. Cant stand people that think so. Who gives a squirt of pee how many threads i7 has, I sure dont. 4.2Ghz x 4 cores, 8 gb of DDR3,Blu Ray,Raptors in Raid 0/1 VelociRaptor,64 bits and 28 inches of real estate = gaming/multimedia bliss...


Liar. A single 4870 cannot play Crysis at 1920x1200. The GTX260 core 216 and the 4870 1GB are roughly equivalent. And even with a 700Mhz+ core on my 260 I cannot quite max out Crysis at 1680x1050. And DON'T say "that's just how good the 955 is", because I couldn't max it even with an E8400@4Ghz. ( In games dual and quad cores at equal clocks perform almost identically.) I think someone is really the fanboi here and its you :) 

Personally I would prefer i7 for the benefit of 1st place, and somewhat better performance. BUT the reason i7 motherboards and 3xram were so expensive is because it was a new platform, and these things were just beginning to be made, where as AMD stayed backwards compatible, which allowed them to skip that phase of over-expensive parts.
May 31, 2009 3:18:32 PM

^+1 Giving him major ownage eh?
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2009 4:55:56 PM

cjl said:
First, stop posting the damn screenshots. We get the idea already. You have a 955, and you love it.

Second, for future reference, there's a button on your keyboard. It's just above the insert and delete keys, to the right and above the backspace key. See it? It says "Print Screen". This button will stop people from laughing at you when you use a camera to take pictures of your monitor in order to get a screenshot. In addition, if you have Vista, you can use the snipping tool, found under "accessories" in the start menu.


LOL. And he still hasn't edited out the green hand lotion bottle to the right of the monitor. How perverted is that?? :o 
May 31, 2009 4:58:36 PM

^ or the picture with him and the girl.
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2009 5:26:26 PM

meatwad53186 said:
While I agree he seems to be a pretty big AMD fanboy, this site needs a few people like him to balance out the very high amount of Intel fanboys. Honestly, the difference between the two is so tiny and the only place you're going to notice it is audio/video encoding, and syntehtic benchmarks and that has been proven time and time again. If you aren't one of those people who has to spend about $100-$200 more for your proc/mobo just to win in synthetic benchmarks and be able to say that you have the very best (even if it is only by a little), then the PII 955 might be for you. but if you are one of the afforementioned people, then sure, get the i7 920 and be happy with it. I just can't stand people telling everyone that they need to spend the extra money so they can have the "very best" intel proc when the AMD works just as well in everything except audio/video encoding and synthtic benchies (which shouldn't even be a big deal anyway, I mean what's the point? It's a SYNTHETIC benchmark, it doesn't reflect real life tasks at all so I don't see why you have to have the top score), and has been recorded outperforming the i7 920 in gaming multiple times. Right now, if you don't use audio/video encoding on your computer on a daily basis, the PII 955 is a much better value.


Quite a few of the Intel "fanboys" here used to be AMD fanboys, until AMD started resting on their laurels back when K8 was beating up on P4, and let Intel surpass them with Core2. AMD really hasn't recovered since then - 3 years ago now.

Of course, AMD fanboys didn't complain about "synthetic" benchmarks back then since AMD was winning quite a few of them. Now that Intel is winning the large majority of them, sometimes by huge amounts, suddenly they 'don't reflect real life tasks'?? That's standard fanbois propaganda tactics - belittle or trivialize the stuff you don't like.

The P2 955 is basically a K8 in quadcore form, with the same 3-issue core design plus a few tweaks, and a large amount of cache, on a much better process node that what AMD usually manages to come up with. The i7 has better IPC due to its 4-issue design, better OoO performance, better cache algorithms, yadda-yadda. AMD won't have any new core design out until Bulldozer appears sometime next year or early 2011.

As for the i920 gaming performance, most of the same reviews you forgot to link to, show the i920 as doing extremely well when not GPU-limited. See HERE for instance:

Quote:
Intel vs. AMD

Our results are quite clear on how this compares, though we know this is a highly debated topic, all of our testing points to both Intel CPUs providing superior gameplay performance. In Crysis: Warhead, Flight Simulator X, and GTA4 both Intel CPUs consistently allowed us to play with higher in-game settings. In every other game framerates were higher on the Intel CPUs, even if the actual gameplay experience was the same. For gaming, Intel Core i7 and Intel Core 2 processors provide more performance allowing you to get the most value from your high-end graphics card investment.


Of course, the CPUs except for the Core2 were chosen for having the same clockspeed, which is why you won't see the 940 or 955 in the comparison. But, if you can afford quad GPUs, you can probably afford an i975 too :) .
May 31, 2009 7:58:56 PM




Hello' I have the AMD 955 also, but my system only shows it at 1.61 GHz.

I have a MA790FXT-UD5P GIGABYTE board, 4gb of ddr3 memory, HD4870 1GB graphic card and a 750power supply.
Do I need to flash my bios and so can you please help me out.

Thanks.
May 31, 2009 8:04:31 PM

^ that's cool 'n' quiet in play, go into a cpu intensive task like linpus or prime95 and it'll shoot up to 3.2ghz.
May 31, 2009 8:27:31 PM

is it still smart to buy the i7 920 when in September they will be discontinued and the x58 mobo will be useless?
June 1, 2009 4:01:44 AM

Quote:
Of course, AMD fanboys didn't complain about "synthetic" benchmarks back then since AMD was winning quite a few of them. Now that Intel is winning the large majority of them, sometimes by huge amounts, suddenly they 'don't reflect real life tasks'?? That's standard fanbois propaganda tactics - belittle or trivialize the stuff you don't like.


So you are trying to say that because an i7 can score 30,000 in 3dmark, and it can encode audio and video so much quicker, that someone who is going to use the computer for gaming should drop the extra $100-$200 on the i7 system over the P2 system even though they are even in benchmarks for real games, and the P2 has also been shown to pull ahead on multiple occasions? So what if that person took the extra $100-$200 they saved from the i7 system and threw the extra money toward a better GPU? Then for their real life uses, the P2 955 is the better buy hands down. Synthetic benchmarks are just that, SYNTHETIC! Who cares what you score in 3dmark, as long as your system runs the games you want to play, then why does it matter?

In this thread, the OP didn't say if he had a budget, but the fact that he is deciding between the i7 920 and the P2 955 would lead me to believe that he is on a budget, and the fact is, no matter how much you want to argue, that on a budget, the P2 955 is the smarter buy if it's for a gaming system, which is what the OP is building his system for.
June 1, 2009 4:05:16 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
LOL. And he still hasn't edited out the green hand lotion bottle to the right of the monitor. How perverted is that?? :o 


Except for the fact that the bottle clearly says "Germ X", making it a bottle of hand sanitizer. NT on that one buddy.
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2009 9:09:50 AM

Here is a slightly older article on the Phenom II 955 CPU with a graph showing a value comparison between it other AMD and Intel CPU's.The Core i7 920 is shown.The prices have changed a bit since then but it is a decent article.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16796/1

Here is the graph at nearly the end of the article.The first graph shows the cost per performance for various CPU's.More importantly the second graph shows the cost per performance for a system.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16796/14

As you can see it is desired to have a high performance CPU at the least system cost.
So it looks as from this chart in this article the AMD Phenom X4 955,Intel Quad Core Q9550 and the
Intel Core i7 920 are pretty good from the performance per system cost.Many other CPU's are close though in addition.
The Phenom II X4 955 for those who desire to spend less and the Core i7 920 for those desiring a more powerful system at a reasonably low price.
Once one spends too little on a cheap CPU for the total system then it isn't economically viable.This is also true if one spends too much on a CPU.
Here is another older article Comparing the earlier Phenom II's to Intel's CPU's.
As of this articles date only the Phenom II 940 existed but the Core i7's are shown.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/746-10/amd-phenom-ii...

There are lots of articles and various benchmarks.It's for the buyer to decide his choice.

For me I would choose the Core i7 920 because I mostly am going to use it to run Microsoft Flight Simulator X.I supported AMD in the past building a Phenom 9850 BE system early last year and was pleased with the smoothness in FSX due to the high memory bandwidth.The frame rates were less on average than Intel's Quad's but no distracting stuttering whatsoever.The Core i7's have even better bandwidth now so that one advantage that AMD previously had, Intel has improved upon with their Core i7 line and QPI.I think I'll wait for a few weeks until the D0 stepping is available hopefully at newegg to build a Core i7 system.I am a little bit nervous on this as I am familiar with Pins on my CPU though.
If I were the O.P. I would make my choice on what I applications and games I was using it for.

June 1, 2009 1:38:33 PM

Quote:
The 1366 motherboards are sub 200 now. Foxconn has one for 179.99

AMD gives 4 PCIE slots.
June 1, 2009 1:43:16 PM

I intend to play stuff like NFS, GRID, GTA, FC2, COD, Rainbow Six, GRAW etc.
i7 or PII?
June 1, 2009 4:08:58 PM

I intend to get abiggish monitor later next year. Heard that multi GPU setups are better for high res. Thinking of CFing 3 USD 120/2 USD 160 cards together
a b à CPUs
June 1, 2009 6:21:44 PM

meatwad53186 said:
Except for the fact that the bottle clearly says "Germ X", making it a bottle of hand sanitizer. NT on that one buddy.


You sure?? Maybe its just made in Germ-any, for X-rated pr0n browsers :D 
June 1, 2009 8:21:20 PM

If ur not gonna up for 5 years i7, but otherwise Phenom 2 is better because with same money cpu+mobo+ram+gfx, you will get better performance. For example u can buy a AM2+ mobo and cheap ddr2 and a way better GFX which determines most of the FPS in games. in the end Phenom 2 vs i7 with same money Phenom2 wins cause you will end up having 4890 cf vs single GTX 275.

p955+4 gigs of ddr2+AM2 mobo+ pair of 4890= 850 dollars

i7 920+ 6 gigs of ddr3+x58+GTX275= 850 dollars

therefore phenom wins in gaming but i7 beats AMD in all around. Long lasting and photo video editing etc etc. Gaming=Phenom 2 All around = i7

simple and clear
June 1, 2009 10:01:48 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
You sure?? Maybe its just made in Germ-any, for X-rated pr0n browsers :D 


I am quite sure as this hand sanitizer is in one of my classrooms.
June 3, 2009 8:22:57 PM

brendano257 said:
Liar. A single 4870 cannot play Crysis at 1920x1200.


Actually, if running DX9 mode it sure could :) 
June 3, 2009 10:47:57 PM

CptTripps said:
Actually, if running DX9 mode it sure could :) 


Have one... tried it.... its a lie. 1440x900 with most things on max 2xAA is the best it can do. and thats in DX9
June 4, 2009 2:18:03 AM

I agree with Gin. i have one and i cant do it. i've always owned amd/ati and im not that up myself to say it can. BECAUSE IT CANT, ITS ONLY A 4870 FFS! As for the OP i would personally got the P@ 955 so i can put extra money into a 4890/285 which will handle a higher res ie 1920x1200.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!