BEST GAMING CPU NOT PHENOM II

This isn't anything new, when P2 came out it's original benchmarks showed that C2Q and I7 are slightly faster in most games when at the same clock speed.

y didnt they put the 955 in there, y didnt they put the 945, the 905e

funny how the i7 920 at the same clock speed as the x3 720 in "crysis" the holy grail of performance only averaged 3.5 fps more than a cpu that that has 1 less core, 5 less threads and only 95w tdp compared to its 130w oh and a $280 cpu scoring only 3.5 fps over a cpu that costs $119, you intel fanboys really like giving those millionaires and billionaires your money, oh and did i see wrong or did they get the same 6fps min, is $160 worth 3.5 fps you tell me.

y are intel fanboys always so ansy for a fight , ive never seen a thread saying
(is $160 worth 3.5 fps you tell me?)

Like whats already been said, theres very little difference between todays chips, but some people are stuck on yesterday, and P1' perf, which admittedly wasnt anywhere near Intels in gaming.
Thats changed, and tho they still havnt topped Intel, theyre right there next to em.

What I find funny is, alot of people have never forgiven AMD for the 939 skt thing, and the subsequent let down of 65nm and P1. Id just like to point out, I think its time for all those former Intel fanboys to forgive Intel for P4 heheh

Both Intel solutions reach close to 3Ghz. Both cost much more individually, as well per platform (cpu included). Why not use the money saved, if it makes no difference, and use a better gfx card, like most people would do?

Sorry, didnt know about the clock speeds, I avoid [H] as much as I can.

In an earlier thread, someone asked to rate the importance of clock vs FSB vs cache. Its hard to pinpoint exactly, as some games apps nneed the cache, while others dont, tho gaing, its a good idea, and I pointed out in that thread, you shouldnt worry about cache on a full cpu, but the lessor lil brothers is when youll see its lack show in perf, not in the full cpus. I thought everyone knew that?

Try this chart http://www.hardocp.com/image.html? [...] 85X2wuZ2lm
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80569Q9550 - Retail $220 FS Easy OC
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819115041
AMD Phenom II X4 945 Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor Model HDX945FBGIBOX - Retail $225 FS
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103675
So we know all the CPUs will all make at least 40FPS. Then we have to ask how often they make at least 40FPS. The line chart, without AA which taxes CPU most, shows the PII to lag most of the time.

Link? You must be color blind. http://www.hardocp.com/image.html? [...] 85X2wuZ2lm

And the graphs are the only facts, but you also have to be able to read them as well. I like their ideas, but theyve distorted, and politcized them so bad, to me it doesnt matter anymore what they say or find

Amen to that, all I see is a bunch of lines running over each other. Its impossible to glean any useful info from those graphs.

FPS (frames per second)

681+ seconds on the chart

use the zoom feature of your browser

seems simple to me C2Q White UP, PIIX4 Red DOWN

Zoom feature doesn't do anything but make the lines bigger, they still cross over exactly the same, only you can't see the rest of the graph. The graph needs to be redrawn wider, that is the only solution. Height probably won't matter. But [H] won't want to make their dubious conclusions more obvious so nothing is going to change.

See those drops? Thats where it stops and starts again. Funny how only the P2 shows up so low? Look at the intervals on the drops, theyre the same amount of time. A little doctoring perhaps?

This has to be one of the best misleading posts ever done. He takes the time to link and mention the specs of the 945. I then think the graph must be a different one, one that includes the better 9 series PhII. Nope. Still got the x3 and the lowly 810. I'm with jenny on this one, this thread and that article don't really prove anything. Lower end three and four core CPUs are slower then higher end quad and 8 thread CPUs. Wow, hell of a news flash there folks. I think my world is coming apart now.

For those of us who don't have money coming out our @$$e$, the fact that the x3 and x4 in any flavor comes close to the best of the C2Qs is great news. This allows us to get a "good" CPU, and spend the money saved on a better GPU. If you only have a $400-$500 budget, you can't afford to get a $220 CPU. Buying an X3 and putting up with slightly slower results IS great news.

What do you expect someone who cites [H] to begin with?

^+1
Really shocked to see this thread and that article that it links to...

X3 720 - $120
X4 810 - $160
Q9650 - $320
Core i7 - $280

How can those people even write an article comparing CPUs that dont even cost half the price of one with other

A serious let down...

They shoulda included the EE models as well heheh

I'd also like to see them also compared to the $103 3.1 Ghz Phenom II 550 with the 2 other cores enabled

As stated, I also avoid [H]. Their editors cannot take any criticism and will down right be rude to anybody they want to on their message board.

Toms, Guru3D, Benchmarkreviews, Anandtech all take criticism openly and objectively and these 4 sites I've seen, take forum suggestions and implement them on their testing.

I don`t live in Australia >... still, really nice buy... seemed like me when I purchased 2 OC 4850 for 190$ cad 165$ US >

Rebate Hunter we are >

Well, their latest article claiming comparing CPU with different graphic cards is a bit... how to say that politely... useless...? :S

Comparing ATI/AMD with NVIDIA/Intel... lol, way to go for a SERIOUS and objective compare...

To be fair, I have seen good [H] articles, especially their PSU ones. I don't always agree with the conclusion they come to, but at least the data is there. They do seem to always put down ATI/AMD, but I'm not 100% sure if its because the products are/were that bad or they are biased against those companies. I do think its important to test the way they do, it provides another tool we can use to compare. The problem is we need to make sure we aren't a tool and swallow anything they feed us.

Oh, and if this thread seems to disappear then it's in the discussion sticky. It's omre about [H] than AMD/Intel now anyway.

Ok Penryndo, let's try again.

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html? [...] 83X2wuZ2lm

Take out the green, it's a tri-core.

From 1-61 seconds, the 810 is a clear 10-15 fps faster than the i7. You've just played a whole minute at either 30fps or 20fps, what would you prefer?

Now look at the end, and you'll see once again the 810 has a clear lead. The last 3-4 minutes has the 810 ahead almost without fail.

In the middle, the i7 starts to get some high numbers, especially from 241-461 seconds. What actually is happening here is, those high middle numbers are hugely changing the overall fps in favour of the i7.

Over that 11 minutes however, the 810 has a consistently higher fps total for much of it. What is the explanation for that?

So you're kinda right Penryndo - average framerate doesn't tell the whole story. Because, in this case the i7 comes 0.9 fps higher in total, even though if you were playing it on both the 810 would prove to be a better experience for longer periods of time.

The 810 is better at the start and end, and the i7 is 'more' better in the middle where the fps isn't such an issue. We've seen this before with the i7 - it's why it owns at extreme low res gaming. This graph is good proof of the i7 failing quite hard at extreme high res gaming however, because there is no other way to justify it losing to an 810 over such a long period of time.

X3 720 will probably be the fastest if your trying to stick to a budget because you'll be able to buy a more powerful graphics card(since your spending less on the cpu) which will make a bigger diffference to the framerate you get.