Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

(GAMERS ONLY) i7 vs 955/ is 300$ worth it?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 15, 2009 4:46:01 AM

Im tired of seeing gamers that never/once every month use video encoding or zipping (mostly NEVER used.) go for i7 for their new build. What about Phenom II 955 people?? Intel does beat AMD in performance, But I think that for the mainstream, Us, Gamers, are just buying i7 for the braggin rights. Nothing else. ONCE AGAIN I DO SAY THAT INTEL BEATS AMD IN PERFORMANCE SO PLEASE KEEP YOUR EGO DOWN:


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...955,2278-9...

Same performance.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...55,2278-10...


Here in world in conflict, i7 looks like he has the advantage. But weird how a usually very used option such as AA makes the i7 drop by 20 FPS. While 955 drop only 10. Anyway, you will HARDLY see a difference for the ~300$ (mobo+cpu+ram) your paying. This fps drop is very present in intel cpu. If you get a Intel CPU that performs same in gaming that a Phenom, You will get a lot more instable Frame rate. Sometimes dropping from 60 to 30, making the game look extremly lame compared to a constant 45-35 from Phenom.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...55,2278-11...


Phenom is more power efficient, And this is what gamers need, The power should be used by GPU's and make us pay less for PSU.


Now lets talk about that ADVANTAGE of i7 that MOST (not ALL because that would be lie) and by MOST i mean at least 70% NEVER use.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom...955,2278-8...


less then a minute, less then 50 seconds, and 10 seconds difference. Is that EVEN such a big deal? I would rather pay 300 less and wait 1 minute for something I might use...once every year? I never zip anyway and most dont. We torrent and UNZIP not ZIP. The only REAL disadvantage is the video encoding that MAYBE some of us use. But 300$ pops in my mind again, and 1min/300$ is FAR from being a good deal to me.


ONCE AGAIN THIS IS RELATED TO THE GAMER COMMUNITY AND PEOPLE THAT DOESNT VIDEO ENCODE/ZIP ALOT (aka every gamer..).

As you see, the ONLY reason AMD is Bleeding money is because people buy for the braggin right, they don't even take the time to compare for their need and often end up paying more.
300$ People. 300 $! add the 200$ you were gonna get your GPU with, and you can get a 500$ GPU. 2HD5850 or 1 HD5870 or even 1 GTX295. Do you understand how much gamers waste? This is why I started this thread.

This is the only reason AMD is bleeding money and can't make even more "gamer" cpu, it's only because nobody takes time to READ about the actual technology, they don't even ask themselves what will they do with that damn CPU there getting at over 300$. And please don't mention i5, I really don't want to go look for those slicing review that cuts this cpu to pieces, and it's definitly not a "gamer" cpu if it doesnt support dual x16 scaling. Intel is definitly not made for "mid range" CPU's.


One review is not enough? Here's more:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu....76,77&tid=...

Watch what happens if you overclock it to a mere 3.8
Yes, it reach the performance of a 1000$ CPU.


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu....76,77&tid=...


Beat the i7.


Now don't get me wrong, the i7 is DEFINITLY a better CPU. DEFINITLY. But NOT for US gamers, only for corporations and things like that.
But is it worth the money? Is it worth 300$ that you couldv spent on a better GPU?
Check for example the valve particle simulation, of course i7 beat the Phenom II 955, but look at the frames here, it's already past 60, you will not notice any difference because YOUR MONITOR IS SET TO 60HZ. Even the bests mainstreamz are only 75. I heard about new 120MHZ monitors, but I think our eye limits us and you won't see the difference. Is there a difference to "see" anyway?? I think 60 is the "limit" required for gaming...


AMD isnt bleeding money cuz they suck, AMD is bleeding money because PEOPLE SUCKS.
Computing used to be a professional domain, now anyone can come and claim that he can use a computer, while he hardly know what provide them Gaming power. If all people would take time to CHECK and LEARN, AMD would be rich by now, and gaming would have advanced a bit faster.


Now I didnt take the time to make this thread just to get diced or start a i7 vs Phenom II 955 war, I already lost. Im talking GAME WISE. And since I am on a "gamer" forum, Im hoping NOT to get flammed, just to be explained where I got wrong. I think AMD should rule the gaming community. But no it don't, because most of people only care about brand name or fashion, "since everybody is going i7 Im going too".

I just felt the need to show the truth to everyone that SHOULD see it. I personally would prefer saving my money and laughing on people that NEVER will use the REAL power of the i7 but still wasted 300 bucks.


Anyway If 2 reviews ain't enough, and that you might want to talk about the "awesome" scaling power the i7 has to offer, here's a little something for you:

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/...is-Warhead...


People claim that a CPU Bottlenecking can be seen at maximum quality. Here's your Bottlenecking.

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/...-Clear-Sky...


Once again, the moment we crank the AA, i7 shows its true weakness.


http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/...n-Conflict...

Okay, I give the i7 ONE win. GG. we NEARLY reached 60 fps with phenom tho, if you overclock it, youl go over 60. Once again, this is a performance that will not be seen.

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/...-May-Cry-4...


Enough said. I am ready to get flammed, raped, jumped at for this insane blasphemy. Go on. Just remember that: I am talking GAMEWISE,
I admit a i7 is better CPU that phenom II 955 but still ask yourself if 1 min is worth 300$ that you could win 30 fps with.

I will admit something FRANKLY, Quad cores of last generation DID beat AMD! I will NEVER deny this. But I am talking about the current generation. Also, 6-cores and 8 cores (Bulldozer) are coming in AMD while i9 and 8 core are coming at Intel, Now I wonder wich one will cost less for the performance that never will be used and wich one "gamers" will get?


One last thing, I mentioned that i5 is totally out of the question and this is why: First I read a review that said that the testers were disapointed by i5, and that i7-860 was the real deal for LGA1156. Another thing is i5 only scales dual x8 for the same price of a dual x16 from AMD. And last but not least, LGA1156 is already dead: This is intel's response to next year's 6core and 2011's 8core: http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15749/35/
Less cache, more pricey, still dual x8. GG intel.



What do you people think about the whole i7 frenzy happening in the gaming world? Please refrain from hating comments, I just showed pure facts...This is in no biased, and not meant to dice intel or intel owners.

More about : gamers 955 300 worth

October 15, 2009 5:04:27 AM

GUYZ SORRY I REPAIRED THE BROKEN LINKS!
October 15, 2009 5:22:39 AM

Wow, 28 reads, and not a single flame?
Cmon guyz, This is pure blasphemy.
You can't let me do that? Where is the ego people?
wow I feel so rejected right now...
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 6:00:58 AM

don't triple post in your own thread? =/
October 15, 2009 6:03:00 AM

:(  just don't hit me...
sorry daddy...
and what about the actual thread?
I would like to know if im going out my mind, or if I am right
Your position?
October 15, 2009 6:14:19 AM

i always felt AMD vs Intel was pretty much like ATI vs Nvidia. Just like Nvidia used to have the best performing graphic cards but charged a premium that i thought wasn't worth it, Intel charges a premium for their better performing CPUs. I personally rather go AMD and have a well rounded pc, while saving money.
October 15, 2009 6:16:40 AM

Whats sad is that, you don't lose performance going AMD.
Seriously man, 1min per 300$?? You gotta be Sh1tting me??
If it was 2 or 3 minute, then yeah for NON GAMERS I would recommend i7.
But cmon guyz, in the GRAPHIC forum, Im amazed that people still go i7....what a waste...
October 15, 2009 6:16:47 AM

Only part I had saw that was wrong was that 120hz is the upper end limit for monitor, not 75.
October 15, 2009 6:17:50 AM

Oh thank you!! >< I don't know about the latest technology in monitors XD
Can you give me an example of pricing?
Still the human eye limits the frames per second you can see, and 120 is far off the limit.
October 15, 2009 6:23:17 AM

well the 120hz monitors are used for the nvidia 3d vision, other then that I don't see why anyone would want to spend the extra money on them, besides i think the best resolution you can get them in is 1680 x 1050. correct me if I'm wrong
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 6:37:09 AM

The only reason you'd go with the i7 is if you were doing video encoding (with something like x264) or even more so with 3D rendering. If either of these tasks is your job, the extra $300 for the i7 will pay for itself in increased productivity pretty quick.

For gaming there is no reason to go with i7, except perhaps for FSX, but a 2P workstation is better for that :D 
October 15, 2009 6:43:34 AM

Quote:
The only reason you'd go with the i7 is if you were doing video encoding (with something like x264) or even more so with 3D rendering. If either of these tasks is your job, the extra $300 for the i7 will pay for itself in increased productivity pretty quick.

For gaming there is no reason to go with i7, except perhaps for FSX, but a 2P workstation is better for that :D 


Finally someone understand!!!
Now, if you could explain this to the over 9000 gamers here on the graphic forum that buy a i7.....
Maybe AMD would have more money to REALLY beat intel at a fair price..?
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 7:52:02 AM

I posted a thread when these i7's first came out, It said "Why do you all keep recommending the i7 when there is no real world difference in games between the i7 and a top end C2D or AMD"
See, that's a lot easier than your wall of text that I'm sorry but I'm not awake enough to read all off right now :) 
The reason i got given was basically because Enthusiasts want the best regardless.
Oh and on the refresh thing, there is no set limit to what the human eye can perceive. Sure there are reports about on the net claiming A or B and movies only run at X speed etc. We have done the subject to death a few times on these forums and its clear that its down to individual preference as well as some people having a different tolerance as far as the actual refresh rate is concerned. While I'm quite happy running a monitor at 60Hz with out an issue i know people who claim it gives them issues, nausea and headaches etc.
Personally i can tell the difference between 60 and 75 on my own screen. that's to say i cant sit and look at it and say that's 75 and that's 60 but only last week the wife had installed something on her settings and asked me to look at something and it was strange but i thought hang on something isn't right here, went and looked at the properties and sure enough it was running 60.

Mactronix
October 15, 2009 7:55:22 AM

Oh ok thanks for the information!

But yeah.. I still wonder if it's REALLY worth the extra cash...
Well anyway, both cpu only reach the 120 fps on 1 on 2 games so...Currently, i7 has no clear advantage over Phenom II 955

Well I know this wall of text is HUGE but it's hard to convince people by just claiming something, and it took my quite a good amount of time to prepare a non-holed claim...Seems it's working pretty well, I did not get flammed YET.

Well this one is full of hatred against that dude in the quote, maybe this one will look better?
http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.php?showtopic=...

YOU KNOW WHAT? IMA POST IT INSTEAD!!
October 15, 2009 7:57:01 AM

Well...at least it looks a little better... O.O took off that non necessary hate quote.. Does it look any better? :D  makes you want to read it maybe?
October 15, 2009 8:38:06 AM

I cannot believe that there is so much difference 300$(for cpu+mobo+ram) but I guess different countries different prices.

For me it is worth the money to go with the i7 instead of the PII 955 because in my country the price difference is 100€(for cpu+mobo+ram) plus the fact the i7 is reasonably faster in games considering that it cost only 100€ more.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,23...
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (OC 3.7 GHz) with 2 x HD 4890
Intel i7-920 (OC 3.4 GHz) with 2 x HD 4870

Here are some of the results:

World in Conflict
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 very high 63fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 very high 88fps

far cry 2
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 very high 71fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 very high 92fps

Prototype
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 4xAA high 54fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 4xAA high 70fps

As you can see the i7 system (with slower graphic cards) shows a solid lead over the Phenom II(with faster graphic cards). Keep I mind that the i7-920 was only OC at 3.4GHz, Now imagine the difference if the i7-920 was OC at 4.2GHz(easy with a good aircooler) total domination against the Phenom II.

Also performance difference will be even bigger (between the i7-920 and PII-955) with more power full GPU setup (ex. 2 HD5870’s) because the Phenom II will bottleneck the 2 HD5870’s very badly.

To conclude:
Combination 1
i7(cpu+mobo+ram) = 500€ + 2 HD4870’s = 250€ == 750€
Combination 2
PII(cpu+mobo+ram) = 400€ + 2 HD4890’s = 350€ == 750€

Combination 1 gives better fps in games than Combination 2 with the same amount of money.

Now you are going to disagree or whatever, but I don’t care because you are a blinded AMDfanboy that likes “flame” :p 
October 15, 2009 8:40:02 AM

Quote:
I posted a thread when these i7's first came out, It said "Why do you all keep recommending the i7 when there is no real world difference in games between the i7 and a top end C2D or AMD"
See, that's a lot easier than your wall of text that I'm sorry but I'm not awake enough to read all off right now :) 
The reason i got given was basically because Enthusiasts want the best regardless.
Oh and on the refresh thing, there is no set limit to what the human eye can perceive. Sure there are reports about on the net claiming A or B and movies only run at X speed etc. We have done the subject to death a few times on these forums and its clear that its down to individual preference as well as some people having a different tolerance as far as the actual refresh rate is concerned. While I'm quite happy running a monitor at 60Hz with out an issue i know people who claim it gives them issues, nausea and headaches etc.
Personally i can tell the difference between 60 and 75 on my own screen. that's to say i cant sit and look at it and say that's 75 and that's 60 but only last week the wife had installed something on her settings and asked me to look at something and it was strange but i thought hang on something isn't right here, went and looked at the properties and sure enough it was running 60.

Mactronix



But you have a crt screen, then.
Very simplified, a crt screen will "draw" an image on the screen 60, 75, 85 times per second (depending on the refresh rate), which can result in flickering. It looks like the screen is turned on and off veeery quickly all the time, which is acutally not so far from the truth.

An LCD screen doesn't have this problem as the shutters keep their opacity until they get a new instruction. Theoretically, the backlight could produce a flickering effect, but the backlight is usually locked at 200hz so that is rarely a problem.

In short:

The refresh rate on a crt-screen is how often a picture is drawn on the screen.

The refresh rate on an LCD-screen is how often the picture can "change". A low refresh rate can cause stuttering, but I can't imagine that ever being the case with 60hz.



Found a picture that shows the picture being "drawn" on a crt screen:



Looking at that one understands why crt-screens can give the impression of flickering.
October 15, 2009 9:02:41 AM

Quote:
Now you are going to disagree or whatever, but I don’t care because you are a blinded AMDfanboy that likes “flame” :p 




Saying that a Phenom II 955 will bottleneck two HD5870 was rather not inteligent yes.
In fact you don't have any benchmark proving that. I think it's total speculations non based.

As for world at war, You are one of the few people I met that will base himself on a SINGLE game, while Phenom II 955 has proven to be AS good, or BETTER then i7. Also, If you overclock the i7, you should overclock the phenom II 955 also to make it fair right? Your domination is now quite reduced....

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...

In this benchmark, both cards were the same. 6 FPS. Total domination yes. Overclock the phenom II 955, and comparing will be pointless because your monitor is probably set to 60mhz. even set to 75, you will need to concentrate to see the difference.

If you like to concentrate on 1 game to prove domination, what about this:

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...

Here is your total domination. =/
Btw the mobo used was the M4A79T Deluxe, known to have hyper flood problems. With a Asus Crosshair III formula, overlcocked or not, i7 would have been crushed.

Well yeah it really depends on your country but here at canada :
AMD PHENOM II X4 955 QUAD CORE AM3 125W 3200 HZ 8MB CACHE BLACK EDITION
ASUS CROSSHAIR III FORMULA SKT.AM3 NVIDIA 790FX 2PCI-E 2.0 X16/2PCI-E X1/4D.DDR3/1600/1333 /ATX
OCZ OCZ3G1333LVAM4GK AMD Gold PC3 10666 2X2GB Kit 1333MHz 9-9-9-20
2xASUS EAH5850/G/2DIS/1GD5 PCI-E RADEON HD5850 1GB-DDR5,256BIT DUAL DVI-I,HDMI,HEATSINK

1090$

And for i7

INTEL CORE I7-920 2.66GHZ 8MB CACHE LGA-1366 4.8GT QPI
ASUS RAMPAGE II EXTREME SK.1366 INT X58/ICH10R 3XPCI-E 16X 6.D.DDR3-1066MHZ 1600/1333 FSB SATA,ATX
OCZ OCZ3G1333LV6GK Gold Tri Channel Kit PC3 10666 3X2GB Kit 1333MHz 8-8-8-20
2xASUS EAH5850/G/2DIS/1GD5 PCI-E RADEON HD5850 1GB-DDR5,256BIT DUAL DVI-I,HDMI,HEATSINK

1462.59$ Exactly

http://www.sohodiffusion.com/configurpc.asp#

Now you might ask why I took the Asus Rampage II extreme? Well I matched the quality of the item of course.
It's simple to take the lamest Mobo that cost less and will never allow your so-claimed 4.2GHZ overclocking and make the Phenom II 955 look horrible, but no it doesnt work that way. Even If I take THE LAMESTmobo for i7:

MSI X58M SKT1366 INTEL X58 6 DDR3 1600 SATA FSB 6.4GT/S MATX AUDIO 1394 GB LAN

Were still at 1252$, 250 $ more then a Phenom II 955 build that will rape the i7 thru the @ss IN GAMING (i7 will win in things you will never use..have fun..)

I shoot facts, with websites, name of items, benchmarks and all you can afford to show me is your writing? with EXTREMLY BAD speculations that PHENOM II 955 WILL BOTTLENECK 2 HD5870?
You must be out of your mind... I wonder who sounds more like a fanboy here...?
October 15, 2009 9:16:32 AM

One more thing.

Once again, notice the MASSIVE drop of the i7 when you crank the AA, while the Phenom II 955 doesnt even flinch one bit.
Do you know why they didnt crank the AA to the max?? I mean with that setup, it would still have been playable at 1920x1200.
Because they probably did not want to show the weakness of i7 in generating AA.

Also two "advantages" that were actual mistakes:
2 HD4890 scales less good then 2 HD4870 because it's just a "revised" HD4870 that was single GPU boosted.
The only resolution in wich i7 win by a big amount, is 1280x1024.
Before buying i7, you should first upgrade your monitor.

Now chek Stalker at 1920x1200 with AA cranked up:
50.4 for Phenom II
46.1 for i7

Crysis 1920x1200 no AA (AA would have killed i7)
42.1 PII
36.8 i7

A very good Chart of the INCREDIBLY LAME AA of the i7 is in hawx, where they crank the AA to the max

Notice how the Phenom II 955 DOESNT FLINCH at 1920x1200 and goes down 99 to 95, a mere 4 fps drop.

Watch how i7 goes down straight from 113 to 98. Near 20 FPS. Of course, it's pointless on a game that run well like HAWX.
But imagine Crysis 2 for example? i7 seems to be quite weak for some Good AA. Not future proof for gaming right here, especially when AA is becoming VERY used.

Prototype and World at conflict seems to be game that Phenom II has problem with, Dunno why.
ANYWAY, any frame over 60 is pointless to compare. But I did compare how much a phenom II doesnt flinch, and how much a i7 drop straight to hell.

Anything else to say? some more cherry-picking benchmarks maybe?
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 9:23:42 AM

The i7 system has more CPU power available to it. Once you shift more emphasis on the GPUs (with AA for example) the extra benefit of more CPU power diminishes. The i7 drops alot when AA is applied because it has more to lose as the bottleneck shifts towards the GPUs more (that sounds so cliche, I hate using the term "bottleneck").
October 15, 2009 9:28:11 AM

Yup but even on HD4870, I never saw such drops.
The 4800 serie was actually known for having one of the greatest AA
Both HD4870 AND HD4890 should bring in the same performance, or at least, not a 20 drop to death...
many benchmarks I saw (I personally like very much Guru3D) showed same "AA" power for both of these card.

I heard of Intel CPU being less "Consistent" In fps tho, For example having lots of FPS drops, making high demanding games go from 60 to 30, while phenom II would keep a low 45-35 FPS, wich looked less awfull then the massive drop of intel's...I actually read it here, when someone posted a so fkin biased review of i7 920 vs phenom II 550 (dual vs near 8 core. Who the fk do that?) by [H]...will try to find it..
October 15, 2009 9:30:14 AM

DUm Dum there is an old saying that your only as fast as your weakest link O.o
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 9:31:09 AM

[H] reviews are actually useful for this sort of thing, as they show the framerate over time, not just one or two bars (where only the average is somewhat useful anyway, as minimum framerate is meaningless really).
October 15, 2009 9:33:35 AM

I predict with my super special awesome inner power that a Phenom II 955 would not only rape the i7, but also keep WAY more consistent Frames.
October 15, 2009 9:34:59 AM

Quote:
DUm Dum there is an old saying that your only as fast as your weakest link O.o

Pretty sure it's "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."
October 15, 2009 9:36:27 AM

OH SUP HATER! YOU FINALLY WOKE UP!!
I tought you will never read my thread! :( 
I actually missed you...after all, your the reason why I started this... :( 
October 15, 2009 9:38:32 AM

Quote:
Pretty sure it's "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."

yup; just am so tired that I had a brain fart
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 9:38:54 AM

Quote:
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh...

Heres an example.
Notice how i7 and QX9650 makes HUGE gaps, sometime coming as low as the Phenom X3, and a lame x4 810 (way to go [H] comparing AMD worst cpu to intel's best cpu...more biased, you will never get.)

Someone explained a while ago the reason for those sudden, across-the-board drops in framerate, but I don't remember what they said.
October 15, 2009 9:44:10 AM

aww sucks, it would have been interesting...
But yeah as the old saying say.

In fact, I find minimum frame rate to be extremly needed.

I would rather play with a card that do 40-30 then play with a card that does 45-25..

25 fps is HORRIBLE because for an image to be consistent, your eyes need to see at least 30 FPS, while you dont see MUCH of a difference between 45 and 40.
This is one of the MAIN reason why I will never go i7.

We don't know about future games, but I DONT want to see 25 FPS EVER AGAIN.
I played the whole re5 on pc on my super special awesome bottlenecked HD4850 with (hold your breath) athlon x64 3500+ with 25 FPS.
Even on unreal tournament 3, I usually got aroun 70 fps, but whenever I look at a far distance, or lot of action, I drop to 25, making the whole 70FPS useless. Id rather play 30-25, so that I dont get constent image speed changes.

Fps dropping is far worst then a low "high" fps limit.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 9:56:49 AM

I don't want to go off-topic, but minimum framerate tells you nothing about how smooth the game is. It tells you how long it took to render the slowest frame, and nothing else.
October 15, 2009 10:07:09 AM

mainstream theme in your thread does distube me.

Mainstream gamers run at 1280x1024 or 1440x900 or 1680x1050 or less, CPU is usually a second thought hardly the usual limiting factor in performance for the avg gamer. Usually when the cpu is the limiting factor the rig is just so old it's more like the whole dam thing is the limiting factor.

Granted if i was making a budget esp under 1200 for the whole system. I'd probably just buy again i5 with single card solution just because i like more rounded system performance, but if i was just going for gaming i'd probably have to go with 940 and crossfire just to avoid using a nvidia chipset. As much as i love nvidia and yes i do i've noticed enough imange differences in games to prefer nvidia's cards which is why i have a i7 rig (although it only has 1 card in it it's mostly for transcoding and editing).

and stumble though something ionno was i making a point i think i side tracked myself

anyways if i was the avg gamer running off my shitty what 700 dollar budget hell lets make it 800.

I'd probably get a amd's 940 and crossfire 2 cards again assuming i wasn't already bais on image that nvidia cards produce and just want numbers high pointless frame rate numbers for resolutions my tiny shitty monitor that I as the avg gamer don't realize how shitty my contrast is how blinding bright my backlight is and how off my colors are on that tiny monitor that i put an after thought into.

again i think i side tracked myself

on a "avg gamer" budget (400-800) if i was building just for gaming on the sub 1680x1050 resolution thingy. I wouldn't hesitate to buy AMD cpu over intel, infact i'd probably be inclined to buy a 710/720 ~$110 or a 940~$170 seeing as intel Q9400 is a bit too pricy for that range 20 bucks is a lot and games start to lean to being much more beneficial of a 3 and 4th core.

But alais i am not a person who only concern hell who's main concern is gaming performance, i love HT it has made several programs i use on a regular basis so much more bearable in waiting times. Multi-tasking>gaming to me a pc i build is never lopsided in purpose just because a pc to me is much more then just a 1 purpose machine.


Okay if i had a point in that eye sore of a post and you were able to understand what i was saying you diverse a cookie or something.

I love intel and i7 as i love HT and when AMD comes up with cpu's that perform in the area's that make me cry because it cripples my system for hours while rendering or w.e then i'll love amd too or when my prioritizes change to playing games.

i love nvidia cuz it's the way it's meant to be played haha well it's just the way it's meant to look i've prefer how in several games don't ask me which games like hell i'll remember a list how when there are imagine discrepancies in a game i just perfer how nvidia's looks. it's usually more cinematic if you get me. Although if i was going form a gaming/advantage look usually i think ATI's cards would give that edge, too bad i'm not a fps gamer which sadly i find is like every other game that comes out esp on the PC.

tired~
October 15, 2009 10:14:07 AM

I like turtles
October 15, 2009 10:21:48 AM

Quote:

Now you might ask why I took the Asus Rampage II extreme? Well I matched the quality of the item of course.
It's simple to take the lamest Mobo that cost less and will never allow your so-claimed 4.2GHZ overclocking and make the Phenom II 955 look horrible, but no it doesnt work that way. Even If I take THE LAMESTmobo for i7:

Just for your information, the ASUS PT6 (that cost 180€) can OC the i7-920 to 4,2GHz with no problem. So you don’t really need the expensive Asus Rampage II extreme.

Quote:
EXTREMLY BAD speculations that PHENOM II 955 WILL BOTTLENECK 2 HD5870?

Yes that is true a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below)

Quote:


Once again, notice the MASSIVE drop of the i7 when you crank the AA, while the Phenom II 955 doesnt even flinch one bit.

Let me explain some things to you because you seem than you don’t understand some things correctly.

The AA has nothing to do with the CPU.
This benchmark shows smaller difference between the i7-920 and PII-955 when AA is on because AA stress the GPU not the CPU(also remember that the i7 uses slower GPU than the PII).
When AA is on GPU stress increase while the CPU stress decrease.
When AA is off GPU stress decrease while the CPU stress increase.

If you have a slow CPU with a fast GPU there is not much of a difference in fps between AA on and AA off
On the other hand
If you have a fast CPU with a fast GPU there is a big difference in fps between AA on and AA off



Quote:
Prototype and World at conflict seems to be game that Phenom II has problem with, Dunno why.

Prototype and World at conflict are CPU intensive games and because of that PII performer much slower that the i7.

Stalker and Crysis are GPU intensive games and because of that 2 HD4890 performer faster than the 2 HD4870 regardless of what CPU you are using.

The point is that i7 give more performance than PII in games if you don’t want to believe that I don’t care, keep going with your nonsense.


October 15, 2009 11:17:34 AM

From my point of view a gamer needs :
- a decent CPU (triple core or mid-range quad < 200$),
- a high-end GPU (4870+ , with nowadays standard 5850+),
- a big monitor (22' with at least 1680x1050),
- fast response keyboard,
- fast response mouse,
- perfect sound gaming headset.

Because of the resolution the main item in the build is the GPU which should run all games at max detail with 4xAA (at least). Anything less IMHO is not a gaming rig. If your rig has at least 60 FPS in all current FPS games that dont suck @ss (this means no Crysis) and 30-40 in RTS, 50-60 RPGs then you dont have anything to upgrade too. Now, all this can be made with both Intel/AMD + ATI/nVidia parts with less than 1000$. If you put more money into a rig, I think you are overcompensating for something else :p , because there will always be some1 else with the specs I mentioned that will own your @ss in any game even if you have a I7 975+ quad 5870 (or 3 SLI 285). My lame 2 cents.
October 15, 2009 1:08:35 PM

Quote:
Just for your information, the ASUS PT6 (that cost 180€) can OC the i7-920 to 4,2GHz with no problem. So you don’t really need the expensive Asus Rampage II extreme.


Yes that is true a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below)


Let me explain some things to you because you seem than you don’t understand some things correctly.

The AA has nothing to do with the CPU.
This benchmark shows smaller difference between the i7-920 and PII-955 when AA is on because AA stress the GPU not the CPU(also remember that the i7 uses slower GPU than the PII).
When AA is on GPU stress increase while the CPU stress decrease.
When AA is off GPU stress decrease while the CPU stress increase.

If you have a slow CPU with a fast GPU there is not much of a difference in fps between AA on and AA off
On the other hand
If you have a fast CPU with a fast GPU there is a big difference in fps between AA on and AA off



Prototype and World at conflict are CPU intensive games and because of that PII performer much slower that the i7.

Stalker and Crysis are GPU intensive games and because of that 2 HD4890 performer faster than the 2 HD4870 regardless of what CPU you are using.

The point is that i7 give more performance than PII in games if you don’t want to believe that I don’t care, keep going with your nonsense.


Speculations. You don't have no proof that Phenom II 955 can bottleneck, your basically saying, "yeah it does, chut".

How can a cpu of the same caliber then a i5 bottleneck 2 video cards?
While the Q6600 still doesnt bottleneck (or very few bottleneck) no card yet??

Keep your speculations for you. And how do you explain the moving fps this time?
I did understand the AA thingy btw, but I also mentioned that the difference in AA management between a HD4890 and a HD4870 should never be this different because it's basically the same chip.

Cpu intensive games? Or just plain non-tweacked games that were release before a second check up?
I wonder.
In fact phenom II 955 performs better in crysis, THE most cpu intensive game, so your affirmation is purely "I think so".

Once again, your AA explanation is still so-so. As far as it comes from the GPU, the CPU has to manage something in it, or else
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...

How do you explain such a result with THE SAME GPU?
While world in conflict is usually the "cpu intensive game" your talking about.

Whats your explanation based on nothing this time?
October 15, 2009 1:16:46 PM

Oh and one last thing, the mobo just for my information.
I can show you lots of mobo in AM3 that cost 130$ and can overclock till 4GHZ "just for your information"

That still doesnt make them "Quality" and Recomended mobos.
I simply chose THE BEST mobo for AM3,
I HAVE to chose THE BEST mobo for i7,
Or the comparaison becomes biased.

And anyway that low price card is THE lowest in the whole LGA1366, and the price is still 250$ more.
One last thing, it's P6T, and theres a lot of them so your gonna have to be way more precise.
I guess your tlaking about ASUS P6T SE S.1366 INT X58/ICH10R ATX 3PCIE X16,6D.DDR3-1333MHZ, 1600/1333 FSB,SATA,RAID0,1394
MANUFACTURER: ASUS INTEL SKT.1366, but anyway, it's 40$ more then the mobo I chose. :) 
300$ more, for no apparent advantage If you dont zip/video encode.

Anything to say? By the way, you do realize your bottlenecking thingy is not true right?
How can a card that was released 1 week ago be bottlenecked by a CPU that is still new and very powerfull? Show me stats, or it's not a reason.

I show this: http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...

We start seeing bottlenecking at maximum resolutions and cranked graphics.

Do you see anything? and now your saying that 2 HD5870 will be bottlenecked? It look more like no.
October 15, 2009 2:47:29 PM

322 views...I think I made my point pass!! :) 
October 15, 2009 4:05:39 PM

First off why are you posting about cpu's in the gpu forum? Second many of use have the 17 because of support for both crossfire and sli. It does not matter which card we use as we have multi gpu spport for both and can get he best gpu set out at the time. Another thing is you can not comaprethe best 17 mobo with the best a,3 mobo. They are not on the same caliber. The i7 mobo has more features and performance enhancements the am3 is not capable of. We buy the 17 for the overall package and capabilities not just for the cpu.
October 15, 2009 4:25:55 PM

Quote:
322 views...I think I made my point pass!! :) 

No you didn’t made your point, i7 is a faster CPU than PII the prices difference is not like that to every country, so most people prefer to go with the i7 instead of the PII because of the performance.
Quote:
Do you see anything? and now your saying that 2 HD5870 will be bottlenecked? It look more like no.

I am 100% sure that a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below) but you seem that you have some difficulties to accept it.

Quote:
In fact phenom II 955 performs better in crysis, THE most cpu intensive game, so your affirmation is purely "I think so".

There is no a single game that a phenom II 955 can perform better than the i7-920 (this is true only in your dreams)
Crysis is more GPU intensive game. So in this case both PII and i7 are not fully utilized because the GPU work with a 100% load, as a result PII and i7 to perform identical. When you lower the resolution you see that the i7 performs better in crysis than the PII because the GPU have less to do (less pixels to draw) and the CPU tries harder to keep up with the GPU.



Quote:
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...

How do you explain such a result with THE SAME GPU?
While world in conflict is usually the "cpu intensive game" your talking about.

One HD4890 is not powerful enough the stress the PII or i7.(results are identical regardless of what CPU you are using.)
On the other hand 2 HD4890’s are powerful enough to max the PII but not the i7 (more GPU power here and the PII show his weakness)
October 15, 2009 4:58:36 PM

Quote:
No you didn’t made your point, i7 is a faster CPU than PII the prices difference is not like that to every country, so most people prefer to go with the i7 instead of the PII because of the performance.

I am 100% sure that a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below) but you seem that you have some difficulties to accept it.


There is no a single game that a phenom II 955 can perform better than the i7-920 (this is true only in your dreams)
Crysis is more GPU intensive game. So in this case both PII and i7 are not fully utilized because the GPU work with a 100% load, as a result PII and i7 to perform identical. When you lower the resolution you see that the i7 performs better in crysis than the PII because the GPU have less to do (less pixels to draw) and the CPU tries harder to keep up with the GPU.




One HD4890 is not powerful enough the stress the PII or i7.(results are identical regardless of what CPU you are using.)
On the other hand 2 HD4890’s are powerful enough to max the PII but not the i7 (more GPU power here and the PII show his weakness)



You do realize nothing of what you actually said makes sense right??

Ok I must give a point to chef7734 and to answer him, it's just because this thread started here in this forum in another thread so basically it's not coming out of nowhere, I just copy/paste from this other thread, And I tought the best place to talk about GAMING performances was not in the CPU forum but more in the GPU one.

Quote:
No you didn’t made your point, i7 is a faster CPU than PII the prices difference is not like that to every country, so most people prefer to go with the i7 instead of the PII because of the performance.


Well The price difference is not the same, but is present everywhere. Now wheter you pay 100$, or 300$, it's still more money for no ACTUAL better performance in gaming.

Quote:
I am 100% sure that a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below) but you seem that you have some difficulties to accept it.


Do you think anybody here care about what you are 100% sure about? Are you some kind of medium?
We care about benchmarks here sir, and 80% of these benchmarks that PEOPLE CARE ABOUT prove good enough that the if you game only, and especially if you use ATI Cards, your FAR better going with a Phenom, and use the 300$ your gonna save (250 EVEN if you pick the least good mobo) to get yourself a better GPU. Now to say something as stupid as "im 100% sure", You really must be out of your mind...

Quote:
There is no a single game that a phenom II 955 can perform better than the i7-920 (this is true only in your dreams)


Dude, your starting to sound MORE and MORE like one big damn idiot that doesnt even actually CHECK the links I provide:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70...

Wtf is this? Phenom II 955 beats i7 by 10 FPS. 10. This could make the difference between smooth and ugly gameplay?
Whas that in my dream? NO. On a professional hardware site.

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...
And this??

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...
Even outperform i7 in SINGLE gpu.

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...

Dude. What are you even claiming? All Im showing here is proofs that phenom II 955 beat i7, and this is not in my dream, your the one who won't admit facts Im showing.

Quote:
Crysis is more GPU intensive game. So in this case both PII and i7 are not fully utilized because the GPU work with a 100% load, as a result PII and i7 to perform identical. When you lower the resolution you see that the i7 performs better in crysis than the PII because the GPU have less to do (less pixels to draw) and the CPU tries harder to keep up with the GPU.


That, is by FAR the most stupid thing I heard until now.
It is somewhat true, But who cares about your "real" cpu power if it cant keep up with your GPU? That's the whole point, Intel CPU seem to have problem generating constent Frame rates.
And to check if there is any CPU bottlenecking, We crank the game to the max for BOTH Cpu with the same GPU, and chek wich one will perform less good. Your whole point is totaly stupid, makes no sense.
Go learn how to we use technology before claiming that you know anything.




Quote:
One HD4890 is not powerful enough the stress the PII or i7.(results are identical regardless of what CPU you are using.)
On the other hand 2 HD4890’s are powerful enough to max the PII but not the i7


Once again, one of the most STUPID thing that was ever claimed here on this forum.

You said something true, then some kind of total made up bs.
2HD4890 are enough to stress the CPU true.
But it's NOW that we should see IDENTICAL RESULTS FROM BOTH CPU. So how can you explain all of this WHILE MAKING SENSE PLEASE:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70...
and
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...
and
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...
and
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4...

How?? i7 should NEVER drop under the Phenom II 955. NEVER. and in ALL of these benchies, it definitly beat the i7.
Once again, go learn about the consistence of Intel CPU when it comes to gaming, and come back.

In fact, this should be enough to make the whole i7 gamer market fail.
How come a CPU with such a better architecture lose to a AMD Cpu THIS badly?
It should RAPE him, leaving him no space to breath. But no, it either perform same, or simply less good.
And GAMERS pay AROUND 300$ more for this. that 300$ couldv got em a better GPU. How stupid can this be?

Once again please never mention again that Phenom II 955 will be bottleneck by 2 HD5870, NOBODY here cares about what you THINK. Give us proofs or stop whining.
In fact, just go buy that damn i7 and leave this thread if you don't have anything to show.
This is no discussion about your speculations or your feelings toward a CPU.
October 15, 2009 5:00:47 PM

I'll also back up the claim that a single Phenom II 955 will not fully utilize 2 HD5870's in those resolutions. Judging by the current crop of benchmarks, it looks like my 4870 X2 and the new 5870 are relatively close in performance (besides a few framerates here and there on most games, only a few stand out with a significant performance difference on one or the other). My Q6600, when overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.2 shows massive gains (don't have any screenshots for proof at the moment) in framerates at 1920x1200, and clocking it further to 3.6GHz continues showing improvement. A CPU not much more powerful than what I'm running has no chance of keeping up with nearly double the graphics hardware.
October 15, 2009 5:07:04 PM

If you clock them at the same speed the 17 will beat the pII at the same speed. a 920 will perform the same as a 975 if you clock it to 3.2
October 15, 2009 5:27:14 PM

Quote:
I'll also back up the claim that a single Phenom II 955 will not fully utilize 2 HD5870's in those resolutions. Judging by the current crop of benchmarks, it looks like my 4870 X2 and the new 5870 are relatively close in performance (besides a few framerates here and there on most games, only a few stand out with a significant performance difference on one or the other). My Q6600, when overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.2 shows massive gains (don't have any screenshots for proof at the moment) in framerates at 1920x1200, and clocking it further to 3.6GHz continues showing improvement. A CPU not much more powerful than what I'm running has no chance of keeping up with nearly double the graphics hardware.


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70...

Phenom II 955 is still better and by enough Fps (~30) to not bottleneck a scaling.

Once again people, No proofs even I can claim anything that might make sense but for some people just won't.
Just go read the End of Fermi Hopes thread I made.
This looks like the most plausible speculation, yet is just a speculation.
Until we see benchmarks, It's only speculation, backed off by many people that's all. And I bet it will seem like real if many back it up, but MANY people said that i7 performs better then any AMD Cpu, and the result is in this thread.

Quote:
If you clock them at the same speed the 17 will beat the pII at the same speed. a 920 will perform the same as a 975 if you clock it to 3.2


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70...
I would rather want benchmarks to proof that it will reach the performance, but it seems that Phenom II 955 reach the performance of a i7 965 quite fast here.

Once again, any frame rate over 90 at maximum quality should not be taken into consideration. But even if it is, I wonder if it's worth the extra 300$ because WHATEVER your build is, your gonna have to change in 1 or 2 year to catch up. So Id rather save 300, get better GPU wich will make my rig last a bit longer.
October 15, 2009 5:37:41 PM

woops sorry, TYPO. I meant 60 fps, depending on your monitor refresh rate, wich is 60 for most people.
Pure typo.
October 15, 2009 5:39:32 PM

I fail to see how changing the minimum threshold somehow makes your point valid. They're all well over 60FPS, damn near double for all of them. Why spend more for a Phenom II when a low-mid end C2Q works just as well?

What graphics card are those benchmarks using?
October 15, 2009 5:40:02 PM

Cool story bro.

Meanwhile, I recently purchased an i7-920 ($215 @microcenter) + Asrock extreme mobo ($170) + 3x2gb Corsair xms3 ($130) = $515 (usd).

OC'd the processor to 4.0gz with an after-market air cooler & the memory to 1600mz on this "cheap" motherboard. Prime95 stable for 48 hours. No hiccups since.

Coupled with a 5870, the gaming performance is spectacular (despite the 1st gen, non-optimized gpu drivers and games that are not yet built for directx11 and maximizing multi-threaded/multi-core cps). Even if I didn't benefit from the i7's performance with fairly regular video encoding, I'd have still selected this combo simply for the gaming performance now and into the future.

I can drop in another 5870 (in the second x16 slot) and still have enough pci lanes/slots to maintain my tv tuner card, wireless card and and parallel port card (for the old laser jet). Plus, I can drop in an i9 and there's also plenty of room for 6gb additional memory (or more) in a few months (or years) if I so choose.

If you choose to save a couple dollars and take the hit to gaming performance, enjoy your AMD system and your cherry-picked benchmarks. I could have downgraded to an AMD system, but the savings versus permormance hit + future upgradability constraints were not worth the meager savings.

But yeah, if I were to build a low budget gaming rig, I'd probably pick an AMD cpu.
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 6:10:25 PM

i7 920s cost an amazing $200 at Microcenter.

PhenomIIs are on the same level of the upper Core2Quads.

Yes, I suppose in a specific game and in a specific setting, a PhenomII x4 will be able to beat an i7. But then again, a Core2Duo E8500 can beat a PhenomII x4 and an i7 in a specific game and specific setting as well.

Overall, the i7 dominates the PIIx4, just like a PIIx4 would dominate a C2D E8500

The Intel competition for PhenomIIs in terms of price and performance is still technically the Core2Quads and the new i5s, not the i7s.
!