Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

LGA1156 really is dead.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 16, 2009 9:17:10 PM

Well yeah i just read that thread about how AMDZone is full of "deniers" so i kinda had to write this down..

For this thread tho, im kinda tired and i will pretty much skip the tons of benchies that show how much the phenom II 955 and i5 750 are so close that a 600$ difference (yes, 600$, and you will understand why.) is pretty stupid.

So anyway here's the picture, made by intel.



As you can see, LGA 1156 socket will not receive any new cpu, not for 1 or 2 quarters, but for the whole year of 2010.

The i5-670 is a slightly higher clocked cpu but with less memory cache, and it will come at the same price as i5-750. This means, while AM3 and LGA1336 will upgrade to 6 and 8 cores, LGA 1156 will stay with the same CPU for a whole year. Now what does that means?

If you want to upgrade computer, You will have to buy a new MOBO, a new CPU, and probably RAM (because if you decided to buy i5, your not going to buy amd amirite :pt1cable:  so your gonna have to get yourself another stick of ram for your trichannel i7-920 :)  ) and the total (prices from newegg canada) is a nasty 578.79, by choosing the lowest prices in the market, AKA, Lowest quality (the mobo doesnt even have SLI certification.)

For what advantage? none. A few minutes in zipping or video encoding (something that a MAINSTREAM buyer RARELY uses ANYWAY.) The OMGSOPOPULAR 4GHz overclocking.
OH I forgot that.

AMD recently released a new stepping for phenom II 965, wich is now 125W, and can easily reach 4GHZ also. The price? 200$. Thats 20$ less then i5 (no big deal, but still is less.) So please quit with that 4GHZOMGOOOSHHH it's kinda old...



Notice, I know some people take into account that 2 more cores wont be a noticable increase in performance.

Bullshit.

Take for example the gulftown from intel.
Yes 6 core/ 12 threads won't be a noticable difference since we need programs that are compatible.
But the cpu also comes with MORE CACHE. And this people, is a clear advantage. 12MB instead of 8. Thats a shitload of performance. So don't say that 6 cores and 8 cores are meant to die, because they WILL bring extra performance. It's not just about the cores, it's about the whole architecture.


So yeah bottom line is :
LGA 1156 really is dead =/ I mean so many ppl couldv bought phenom II 955 with a good am3 mobo for the SAME PRICE as their intel computer, and would be future proofed but nooooo everybody hates amd for some reason i dont understand.

EDIT: I had to mention that i7-920 also is a good deal (if you need all of it's performance of course)

More about : lga1156 dead

December 16, 2009 9:26:03 PM

sorry but mods arent stupid enough to ban someone because he post facts.

Didnt you see the image mister smart ass?

NO NEW CPU FOR THE 2010 ROADMAP.

So yeah LGA 1156 is dead. If your only here to flame please get the fock out.
December 16, 2009 9:26:57 PM

I am confused...

Why isn't the i3 on that chart?

Did I make up i3 in my sleep or are they really coming out with it?

Thanks
Related resources
December 16, 2009 9:28:38 PM

lol... wishful thinking from the peanut gallery. let's re-examine its "death" when the retail SKU's are dominated with this "dead end".
December 16, 2009 9:30:38 PM

Of course i3 is coming.

mm I think some people don't quite get what I mean by "dead"

By dead, i mean no new highend product.

i3, and even "clarkdale" are both lowend,mainstream products. Most of the people who bought LGA1156 bought a i5 or a i7 with it. Kind of a worthless buy since you won't have upgrades in a year (we don't even know if they will have upgrades in 2011 either)

So those people arent gonna buy i3 you see?
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 9:32:51 PM

Quote:
As you can see, LGA 1156 socket will not receive any new cpu, not for 1 or 2 quarters, but for the whole year of 2010.

The i5-670 is a slightly higher clocked cpu but with less memory cache, and it will come at the same price as i5-750. This means, while AM3 and LGA1336 will upgrade to 6 and 8 cores, LGA 1156 will stay with the same CPU for a whole year. Now what does that means?

If you want to upgrade computer, You will have to buy a new MOBO, a new CPU, and probably RAM (because if you decided to buy i5, your not going to buy amd amirite so your gonna have to get yourself another stick of ram for your trichannel i7 ) and the total (prices from newegg canada) is a nasty 578.79, by choosing the lowest prices in the market, AKA, Lowest quality (the mobo doesnt even have SLI certification.)

For what advantage? none. A few minutes in zipping or video encoding (something that a MAINSTREAM buyer RARELY uses ANYWAY.) The OMGSOPOPULAR 4GHz overclocking.
OH I forgot that.

AMD recently released a new stepping for phenom II 965, wich is now 125W, and can easily reach 4GHZ also. The price? 200$. Thats 20$ less then i5 (no big deal, but still is less.) So please quit with that 4GHZOMGOOOSHHH it's kinda old...



Notice, I know some people take into account that 2 more cores wont be a noticable increase in performance.

Bullshit.

Take for example the gulftown from intel.
Yes 6 core/ 12 threads won't be a noticable difference since we need programs that are compatible.
But the cpu also comes with MORE CACHE. And this people, is a clear advantage. 12MB instead of 8. Thats a shitload of performance. So don't say that 6 cores and 8 cores are meant to die, because they WILL bring extra performance. It's not just about the cores, it's about the whole architecture.


So yeah bottom line is :
LGA 1156 really is dead =/ I mean so many ppl couldv bought phenom II 955 with a good am3 mobo for the SAME PRICE as their intel computer, and would be future proofed but nooooo everybody hates amd for some reason i dont understand.

EDIT: I had to mention that i7-920 also is a good deal (if you need all of it's performance of course)


What's this tri-channel memory you speak of for LGA 1156?

You claim to have posted facts, and some of what you say might be true, but a bunch of users have already had to correct you on a multitude of inaccuracies.

Now you claim that an i5 at 4GHz is not a big deal. This is quite interesting as you then proceed to claim that a Phenom II X4 965 can also reach 4GHz. The problem there is that it would that the Phenom II X4 to be clocked around 4.3GHz+ (varying on the application) to beat the i5 running @ 4GHz.
December 16, 2009 9:33:17 PM

roofus said:
lol... wishful thinking from the peanut gallery. let's re-examine its "death" when the retail SKU's are dominated with this "dead end".



I think it's kinda worthless to add anything else.

I didnt wish anything, nor did i create some kind of fake information or whatsoever.

EVERYTHING IS IN THE PICTURE.
Thank you very much.

oh and, nobody cares if the SKU is dominated whatsoever.
Thing is, there will be NO UPGRADE for a whole year.
What will you do when you won't be able to upgrade while your fellow AMD "fanboys" will have a 6core,morecache higherclocked cpu and laugh at you? Your only choice is to buy a whole new system, unless you wan't to wait and hope for a new roadmap for 2011?
December 16, 2009 9:34:25 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
What's this tri-channel memory you speak of for LGA 1156?

You claim to have posted facts, and some of what you say might be true, but a bunch of users have already had to correct you on a multitude of inaccuracies.



I wasnt talking about LGA 1156, I said that since you bought a i5, you won't get yourself a AMD system (Obviously.), so you will have to buy another stick of ram since the only choice left for you is the LGA1336 i7. (I know I wrote only i7, but i was refering to the LGA1336 one, mybad)

Also, multitude of inacuracies? take it easy dude it's only one here...
December 16, 2009 9:36:53 PM

1156 is specific to mainstream whereas 1366 is high end. it may have been said once or twice. do you suppose AMD will eternally use their existing socket?
if you have to upgrade you brand spankin new CPU in 6 months then you got took when you bought it. silly point to try to make if you ask me.
December 16, 2009 9:38:52 PM

I still kinda confused.

I think I understand what your saying as in the future of the chip will get phased out as chip advance. (for 1366)

But you can't say highend and mainstream at the same time.

I am a AMD Fanboy out of practicality. I simply can't afford highend Intel products.

I am right in the middle of mainstream demographic of computer products.

With the LGA1156 coming out with i5's with HT they will be better (higherend) products then AMD. So you can see why I am a little confused.
December 16, 2009 9:38:56 PM

roofus said:
1156 is specific to mainstream whereas 1366 is high end. it may have been said once or twice. do you suppose AMD will eternally use their existing socket?
if you have to upgrade you brand spankin new CPU in 6 months then you got took when you bought it. silly point to try to make if you ask me.



Moot point.

It has been said millions of time, AM3 socket will take both thuman and bulldozer CPU (6 and 8 cores)

And I know that LGA 1156 is mainstream, what was your point?
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 9:40:35 PM

bboynatural said:
I wasnt talking about LGA 1156, I said that since you bought a i5, you won't get yourself a AMD system, so you will have to buy another stick of ram since the only choice left for you is the LGA1336 i7. (I know I wrote only i7, but i was refering to the LGA1336 one, mybad)

Also, multitude of inacuracies? take it easy dude it's only one here...

Why would someone need to go LGA 1366 after owning an LGA 1156 platform?

Are you talking performance wise? Because AMD fanboi speaking about performance being an indicator is humorous to say the least.

Let's talk facts.

A Phenom II X6 will be the same (architecture wise) as an Istanbul based processor EXCEPT that it will support DDR-3 memory. We know that DDR-3 memory offers no real performance advantage to the AMD Phenom II architecture (looking at Phenom II X4 940 and 955 at the same clocks).

So for all intents and purposes, the Phenom II X6 will perform around the same as Istanbul. Well... an Intel Xeon X5550 (2.66GHz) BEATS an AMD Opteron Istanbul 2.6GHz in nearly every single test by a wide margin.

We know that LGA1156 based Core i7s generally perform around the same as LGA1366 based Core i7s... So in other words current LGA 1156 based Core i7s are ALREADY faster than the AMD Phenom II X6 based processor.

So why would a user HAVE to go LGA1366?

You fail at logic my friend (Intel is not offering any newer models because they really don't have any incentive to do so. AMD has got NOTHING in the works to truly challenge Intel's current dominance in terms of performance... well at least until Bulldozer arrives).
December 16, 2009 9:41:04 PM

logitic said:
I still kinda confused.

I think I understand what your saying as in the future of the chip will get phased out as chip advance. (for 1366)

But you can't say highend and mainstream at the same time.

I am a AMD Fanboy out of practicality. I simply can't afford highend Intel products.

I am right in the middle of mainstream demographic of computer products.

With the LGA1156 coming out with i5's with HT they will be better (higherend) products then AMD. So you can see why I am a little confused.


Wich i5 will be better then AMD?
Are you talking about clarkdale???

That chip is a joke...
4mb of cache, 3.4ghz, and an integrated graphic... (who the hell buy's integrated graphics? not to mention INTEL INTEGRATED (the worst graphic in history of mankind) )
How can it perform against the upcoming 6 cores of AMD?
December 16, 2009 9:44:39 PM

No worries mate. I honestly didn't know that 6 core was coming out so soon. :) 
December 16, 2009 9:45:32 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Why would someone need to go LGA 1366 after owning an LGA 1156 platform?

Are you talking performance wise? Because AMD fanboi speaking about performance being an indicator is humorous to say the least.

Let's talk facts.

A Phenom II X6 will be the same (architecture wise) as an Istanbul based processor EXCEPT that it will support DDR-3 memory. We know that DDR-3 memory offers no real performance advantage to the AMD Phenom II architecture (looking at Phenom II X4 940 and 955 at the same clocks).

So for all intents and purposes, the Phenom II X6 will perform around the same as Istanbul. Well... an Intel Xeon X5550 (2.66GHz) BEATS an AMD Opteron Istanbul 2.6GHz in nearly every single test by a wide margin.

We know that LGA1156 based Core i7s generally perform around the same as LGA1366 based Core i7s... So in other words current LGA 1156 based Core i7s are ALREADY faster than the AMD Phenom II X6 based processor.

So why would a user HAVE to go LGA1366?

You fail at logic my friend.




Thats kinda going far.

The cpu isn't out yet, so saying that it will perform the same as a phenom II is pretty much stupid.
This is nothing but speculation.

Also, most people upgrade computer once every year AT LEAST.
The point of this thread was to show that there is NO UPCOMING CPU FOR LGA 1156 IF YOU WANT TO UPGRADE, THIS MEANS, YOUR ONLY CHOICE WILL BE TO GET A WHOLE NEW SYSTEM.

This means.

You couldv bought either a AM3 system OR a LGA1366 and upgrade only cpu once in a year.
You won't be able to do so with LGA 1156 since their IS NO UPCOMING NEW CPU.
THIS MEANS, your next machine will have to be bought from scratchs.

Now don't go into performance thingy, cuz apart from zipping and video encoding (for mainstream, yes, they obviously do that twice a day.) the performances are pretty much the same (not to mention gaming where phenom II 955 sometimes beat i5 AND i7, refer to my older posts for a shitload of benchies if you dont believe)
December 16, 2009 9:45:43 PM

bboynatural said:
Moot point.

It has been said millions of time, AM3 socket will take both thuman and bulldozer CPU (6 and 8 cores)

And I know that LGA 1156 is mainstream, what was your point?


my point is you have no point. you wouldn't ever consider buying an Intel CPU to begin with and you throw down this fake outrage about no further CPU upgrades on Intel's roadmap for a year. your argument isn't going to compel a prospective buyer as the market the 1156 targets generally go 2-3 years between upgrades. obvious flamebait and have no idea why i posted here at all lol. jennyh makes much more compelling arguments than you do.
December 16, 2009 9:46:01 PM

Currently the lionshare of the graphics space belongs to Intel, with NV a not so close second and AMD a distant third.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 9:47:18 PM

They are going to make 32nm quads for the 1156 platform. I knew this and still bought my combination now. I will not be upgrading regardless. I will watch with curiosity and maybe jealousy if o/c's can take the new 32nm chips to 5 ghz . Whats left out of the picture is that all the chips are going to be cheaper than AMD's 955 right now. So the enthusiast who wants to o/c will look at the i5 with less cache for less than the i750 is going for now and o/c the hell out of it. Some who don't want to o/c will have different options.

Hyperthreading is going to be sprinkled aroun in some options as well.\

a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 9:47:36 PM

bboynatural said:
Thats kinda going far.

The cpu isn't out yet, so saying that it will perform the same as a phenom II is pretty much stupid.
This is nothing but speculation.

Also, most people upgrade computer once every year AT LEAST.
The point of this thread was to show that there is NO UPCOMING CPU FOR LGA 1156 IF YOU WANT TO UPGRADE, THIS MEANS, YOUR ONLY CHOICE WILL BE TO GET A WHOLE NEW SYSTEM.

This means.

You couldv bought either a AM3 system OR a LGA1366 and upgrade only cpu once in a year.
You won't be able to do so with LGA 1156 since their IS NO UPCOMING NEW CPU.
THIS MEANS, your next machine will have to be bought from scratchs.

Now don't go into performance thingy, cuz apart from zipping and video encoding (for mainstream, yes, they obviously do that twice a day.) the performances are pretty much the same (not to mention gaming where phenom II 955 sometimes beat i5 AND i7, refer to my older posts for a shitload of benchies if you dont believe)


Your gaming benchmarks are based on Graphics card bottlenecks. Have you not seen the latest tests with the 5970s where the Phenom IIs get their asses handed to them?
December 16, 2009 9:50:27 PM

I would like to see those tests if you dont mind.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 9:51:12 PM

bboynatural said:
Thats kinda going far.

The cpu isn't out yet, so saying that it will perform the same as a phenom II is pretty much stupid.
This is nothing but speculation.

Also, most people upgrade computer once every year AT LEAST.
The point of this thread was to show that there is NO UPCOMING CPU FOR LGA 1156 IF YOU WANT TO UPGRADE, THIS MEANS, YOUR ONLY CHOICE WILL BE TO GET A WHOLE NEW SYSTEM.

This means.

You couldv bought either a AM3 system OR a LGA1366 and upgrade only cpu once in a year.
You won't be able to do so with LGA 1156 since their IS NO UPCOMING NEW CPU.
THIS MEANS, your next machine will have to be bought from scratchs.

Now don't go into performance thingy, cuz apart from zipping and video encoding (for mainstream, yes, they obviously do that twice a day.) the performances are pretty much the same (not to mention gaming where phenom II 955 sometimes beat i5 AND i7, refer to my older posts for a shitload of benchies if you dont believe)


Why WOULD LGA 1156 need more CPU models? They are getting 32nm variants of the current CPUs (that's a fact). But why would you need a ton more CPUs when there is absolutely NO competition from AMD?

You mention that a user could have bought an AM3 or LGA1366 CPU and only upgraded once a year.. what are you talking about exactly? i7 based processors on the LGA1156 are far faster than anything AMD has (and I feel comfortable claiming that they will be competitive with what AMD will have in the X6). So why would a user HAVE to upgrade it?

You get the SAME performance AMD will have in Q2 2010.. today!
December 16, 2009 9:54:09 PM

Sharikou! Go away.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 9:54:59 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Your gaming benchmarks are based on Graphics card bottlenecks. Have you not seen the latest tests with the 5970s where the Phenom IIs get their asses handed to them?


You mean this one http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=23 ?

Oh no wait, the phenom II's spanked the i7's in that didnt they... :lol: 

Quote:
However when clocked at 3.0GHz and beyond, the Phenom II X4 really picked up the pace, and in many cases was able to outclass the Core i7.
December 16, 2009 9:56:09 PM

dasickninja said:
Currently the lionshare of the graphics space belongs to Intel, with NV a not so close second and AMD a distant third.


I know I started drinking earlier then normal today, but I have no clue what this means.

Can someone translate this for me please. Thanks
December 16, 2009 9:56:19 PM

Thank you JennyH.

Here's your benchmark elmo.
I hope your happy. :) 
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:00:48 PM

jennyh said:
You mean this one http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=23 ?

Oh no wait, the phenom II's spanked the i7's in that didnt they... :lol: 

Quote:
However when clocked at 3.0GHz and beyond, the Phenom II X4 really picked up the pace, and in many cases was able to outclass the Core i7.

Does the Phenom II X4 come stock clocked at 4GHz?

When you begin to remove the bottleneck from the CPU and to the GRaphics card you get the results I have mentioned often. Which is that since there is a Graphics card bottleneck.. other performance indicators come into play (such as the added latency from having to tunnel data from the PCIe bus to the QPi bus).

LGA 1156 has no such bottleneck. LGA 1156s bottleneck is in the form of the PCI Express links integrated into the die.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:00:59 PM

I see socket 1156 being better than AM3 in games for the next few couple years if you ask me, unless AMD's (bulldozer?) IPC gets higher by quite a bit. They still are barely beating kentsfields IPC and that CPU is getting old as hell.

Aren't 32nm chips coming out on 1156?

And when i5 isn't enough for you, which in gaming that will be a good while, you go i7 1156, I call that a somewhat of an upgrade path. =P

And as far as more cores go for AMD, please. Like that'll help in gaming performance.

But hey I could be wrong! AMD's next gen CPUs (not chip shrink) could be badass, but at the progression lately it doesn't look like it.

Don't get me wrong, AM3 will still have a better upgrade path than 1156, but I see the performance not beating i5 enough by the time the i5 user is ready to buy a new mobo.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:02:21 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Does the Phenom II X4 come stock clocked at 4GHz?

When you begin to remove the bottleneck from the CPU and to the GRaphics card you get the results I have mentioned often. Which is that since there is a Graphics card bottleneck.. other performance indicators come into play (such as the added latency from having to tunnel data from the PCIe bus to the QPi bus).

LGA 1156 has no such bottleneck. LGA 1156s bottleneck is in the form of the PCI Express links integrated into the die.


Phenom II > Anything intel can do in gaming.


Fact. Eod.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:03:45 PM

jennyh said:
You mean this one http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=23 ?

Oh no wait, the phenom II's spanked the i7's in that didnt they... :lol: 

Quote:
However when clocked at 3.0GHz and beyond, the Phenom II X4 really picked up the pace, and in many cases was able to outclass the Core i7.


Lets wait until we get some real benchmarks. Not ones at a GPU-bound resolution. :) 

But hey for all we know Phenom II really could be a gaming gem, but if you ask me it's still too hard to tell.

Unless i7 scaling is REALLY that bad. Which we all know isn't true.
December 16, 2009 10:07:17 PM

Oh because when YOU buy a HD 5970, you play at 800x600?

Seriously what a joke.
Nobody cares about effing benchmarks, we want real life performance, something intel doesnt give us for the 300$ more we pay over such a nice AMD system.

And dude, you see i5 beating phenom II?
Did you skip the shitload of benchmarks that have been running through toms?
or your just a fanboi and dont want to see the truth?
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:11:35 PM

jennyh said:
Phenom II > Anything intel can do in gaming.


Fact. Eod.

Really? Pay close attention to what is happening IN THE FRIGGIN LINK YOU LINKED YOU DOLT!

Core i7 920 @ 2GHz it takes a Phenom II X4 2.8 GHz to match it:


Core i7 920 @ 2GHz it takes a Phenom II X4 3.4 GHz to match it:


Core i7 920 @ 2GHz it takes a Phenom II X4 2.6 GHz to match it:


Core i7 920 @ 2GHz it takes a Phenom II X4 2.6 GHz to match it:


Core i7 920 @ 2GHz it takes a Phenom II X4 3.0 GHz to match it:



So what is going on.. why does scaling seem to stop at some point? A Graphics card bottleneck is formed at some point. When you hit a Graphics card bottleneck, other factors come into play (Processor frequency can still sometimes add 1 or 3 more frames).

There is a process which I have explained in detail and LINKED you the damn patent JennyH.. you're just too ignorant to acknowledge it (willfully ignorant on your part).

Latency comes into play. There is MORE latency in the Corei7 platform in the communications protocols between the CPU and the PCIe bus. I have explained this in great detail.

Now if you want to compare processor performance you have to compare the two architectures using applications which remove any other bottleneck from the equation.

This generally means removing games or running them at a lower resolution.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:12:02 PM

Raidur said:
Lets wait until we get some real benchmarks. Not ones at a GPU-bound resolution. :) 

But hey for all we know Phenom II really could be a gaming gem, but if you ask me it's still too hard to tell.

Unless i7 scaling is REALLY that bad. Which we all know isn't true.


Yeah lol lets run benchmarks at 800x640 0xAA because we all know that's whay real gamers play at.

It's not hard to tell, the Phenom II has been beating the i7 in gaming all year tbh.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:14:25 PM

They may not beat it because they are all tied. We are talking about game software , console ports where o/c dual core cpu's or o/c cache less tri cores in some cases can give the same results because the GPU is the limiting hardware. After that its probably driver anomalies where there is a 6 fps difference. We know with driver updates they announce better fps in certain games, coding around the limiting hardware factor the gpu. Is it so shocking that $600 dollar video card setups are the deciding factor achieving fps/eye candy teamed with $200 dollar cpu's ?
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:14:32 PM

So what is going on.. why does scaling seem to stop at some point? A Graphics card bottleneck is formed at some point. When you hit a Graphics card bottleneck, other factors come into play (Processor frequency can still sometimes add 1 or 3 more frames).

There is a process which I have explained in detail and LINKED you the damn patent JennyH.. you're just too ignorant to acknowledge it (willfully ignorant on your part).

Latency comes into play. There is MORE latency in the Corei7 platform in the communications protocols between the CPU and the PCIe bus. I have explained this in great detail. said:
So what is going on.. why does scaling seem to stop at some point? A Graphics card bottleneck is formed at some point. When you hit a Graphics card bottleneck, other factors come into play (Processor frequency can still sometimes add 1 or 3 more frames).

There is a process which I have explained in detail and LINKED you the damn patent JennyH.. you're just too ignorant to acknowledge it (willfully ignorant on your part).

Latency comes into play. There is MORE latency in the Corei7 platform in the communications protocols between the CPU and the PCIe bus. I have explained this in great detail.


Jeez elmo you see it from one side only dont you?

Every Phenom II made has DDR2 support. You know how hard that is to achieve?

You can make excuses about QPI or whatever but the Phenom II has *more* excuses and *more* reasons why it should be falling behind in gaming.

It isnt - and there is no better gaming cpu than a Phenom II X4.
December 16, 2009 10:14:50 PM

"Latency comes into play. There is MORE latency in the Corei7 platform in the communications protocols between the CPU and the PCIe bus. I have explained this in great detail."

I am here just to watch the sparks fly now pretty much. But this statement may have just added to a +1 to the AMD side :p 
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:22:04 PM



Jeez elmo you see it from one side only dont you?

Every Phenom II made has DDR2 support. You know how hard that is to achieve?

You can make excuses about QPI or whatever but the Phenom II has *more* excuses and *more* reasons why it should be falling behind in gaming.

It isnt - and there is no better gaming cpu than a Phenom II X4. said:


Jeez elmo you see it from one side only dont you?

Every Phenom II made has DDR2 support. You know how hard that is to achieve?

You can make excuses about QPI or whatever but the Phenom II has *more* excuses and *more* reasons why it should be falling behind in gaming.

It isnt - and there is no better gaming cpu than a Phenom II X4.


One side? Because if I am explaining things based on the facts and evidence.. the facts and evidence are what they are. If they end up only support one "side" as you put it then so be it. I think that me telling you there is added latency in the communications protocol between the X58 IOH, PCIe Bus, QPi link and the Corei7 CPU is me admitting a design issue on Intel's part. I fail to see this as me taking Intel's "side".

The argument I am making is that it doesn't matter. You're facing a Graphics Card bottleneck. I cannot make a statement that AMD is just as good or better at Intel in gaming because if I added another card (for Tri or Quad-fire) the results would show Intel in the lead by a long shot. Just look at how much extra frequency an AMD CPU has to run to keep up with Intel when there is no Graphics card bottleneck.

willful ignorance (uncountable)
(idiomatic, law) A bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt. It may also be shown as for a person to have no clue in a decision but still goes ahead in their decision.


logitic said:
"Latency comes into play. There is MORE latency in the Corei7 platform in the communications protocols between the CPU and the PCIe bus. I have explained this in great detail."

I am here just to watch the sparks fly now pretty much. But this statement may have just added to a +1 to the AMD side :p 


Not really.. because it only shows up when the gaming title in question is facing a Graphics Card bottleneck. In other words.. the worst that can happen is a few frames less for the Core i7... which doesn't really matter because normally it would show up as a tie. Either way it's not the CPU holding you back but the Graphics card. Add another graphics card and you alleviate the bottleneck.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:22:31 PM

jennyh said:
Yeah lol lets run benchmarks at 800x640 0xAA because we all know that's whay real gamers play at.

It's not hard to tell, the Phenom II has been beating the i7 in gaming all year tbh.


I'm sure more people play at that or a little higher than people do on 25x16.

Lets see some benches at 1280x1024 - 1920x1200. 5970 and 5970 xfire. If Phenom II matches on both of those setups and those resolutions then I will submit myself to Phenom II's gaming uberness.
December 16, 2009 10:25:02 PM

roofus said:
1156 is specific to mainstream whereas 1366 is high end. it may have been said once or twice. do you suppose AMD will eternally use their existing socket?
if you have to upgrade you brand spankin new CPU in 6 months then you got took when you bought it. silly point to try to make if you ask me.

I am afraid 1156 will fail as before did other lower-ended intell sockets, (there was around 14 cpu sockets for intel CPUs since 2000).
On oposite side AMD did make 4 sockets in last 4 years, but 3 of them are compatible to each other (AM2,AM2+,AM3)
December 16, 2009 10:25:34 PM

dude ur getting 2 HD 5970 and ur effing playing at 1280x1024????

This is a joke right???
With this system you can play crysis enthusiast 2560x1600 witouth a single drop in frames.
December 16, 2009 10:30:19 PM

logitic said:
"Latency comes into play. There is MORE latency in the Corei7 platform in the communications protocols between the CPU and the PCIe bus. I have explained this in great detail."

I am here just to watch the sparks fly now pretty much. But this statement may have just added to a +1 to the AMD side :p 

I dont really agree but its obvious AMD has come close enough to make the monkeys on the web start jumping and throwing fecal matter at each other.

Fact is performance is somewhat negligable as a purchase factor since phenom 2 can hold more of its own than could the last two generations of silicon suicide issued by the now dyckless,, I mean fabless AMD. It all depends more now on how you use your pc, and for what elmo does AMD just doesnt get as close as programs and games created on amd platforms or that can use their architecture better (whatever)
December 16, 2009 10:30:39 PM

*Sigh*

He's recommending those resolutions because for most games, running at those resolutions puts the rendering load on the CPU more than the GPU. Since this entire thread is about CPU's, doing such is a perfectly acceptable means to test the CPU's in question. There's a reason why graphics card tests don't usually feature those low resolutions.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:30:45 PM

bboynatural said:
dude ur getting 2 HD 5970 and ur effing playing at 1280x1024????

This is a joke right???
With this system you can play crysis enthusiast 2560x1600 witouth a single drop in frames.


But you don't 'win' any benchmarks with an i7 unless you play at 800x640??? Sheesh isn't that obvious by now? ;) 

Less than 6 weeks ago the argument was that the i7 would pull ahead given a faster gpu. the reason was the i7 was still being bottlenecked by the 5870 (lol?).

So fast forward a few weeks? The 5970 is out, the i7 is *still* losing to the Phenom II in gaming. And it always will, because the i7 is an inferior enthusiast gaming cpu.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:33:05 PM

dasickninja said:
*Sigh*

He's recommending those resolutions because for most games, running at those resolutions puts the rendering load on the CPU more than the GPU. Since this entire thread is about CPU's, doing such is a perfectly acceptable means to test the CPU's in question. There's a reason why graphics card tests don't usually feature those low resolutions.


That is so much garbage.

I've said it a million times but I will say it again. The i7 is great at low resolution gaming when neither the gpu or cpu is being stressed much. Throw a difficult game at it and the Phenom II copes better.

Because the Phenom II is a better gaming cpu, and always has been.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:34:26 PM

bboynatural said:
dude ur getting 2 HD 5970 and ur effing playing at 1280x1024????

This is a joke right???
With this system you can play crysis enthusiast 2560x1600 witouth a single drop in frames.


If your talking to me you may want to get checked out for dyslexia.
December 16, 2009 10:35:26 PM

I know all of that THK U
But who effing cares???
your gonna pay 300$ more, for more framerates in 800x600? Is this the only thing i7 is good at???

Seriously like jennyH said, a few weeks ago it was "phenom II stands no chance against i7 WITH A HD 5970"

Now, since the benchies are out, its "phenom II stands no chance against i7 IN 800x600"

GOSH wats with all the hate???
Why don't you just admit that AMD are very performant cpu and that intel only gives us benchies, nothing real.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:36:10 PM

xrodney said:
I am afraid 1156 will fail as before did other lower-ended intell sockets, (there was around 14 cpu sockets for intel CPUs since 2000).
On oposite side AMD did make 4 sockets in last 4 years, but 3 of them are compatible to each other (AM2,AM2+,AM3)


Enthusiasts talk of getting new cpu's 150-1000, new gpu's 100-700 to gain or experience a new EDGE. What is so wrong in the logic to update your motherboard/memory hardware ?
This argument is senseless. Its taken a given set of facts/circumstances and turning it in to some kind of advantage , positive or negative depending on where you want to argue the point. We pull our motherboards out of our cases to put on Heatsinks, how is "bad" that Intel spends millions on engineering better more feature oriented motherboards.
December 16, 2009 10:37:45 PM

jennyh said:
That is so much garbage.

I've said it a million times but I will say it again. The i7 is great at low resolution gaming when neither the gpu or cpu is being stressed much. Throw a difficult game at it and the Phenom II copes better.

Because the Phenom II is a better gaming cpu, and always has been.

God how do you breathe without killing yourself? Your argument is laughably idiotic. If the i7 is the better chip when gaming at CPU dependent resolutions, how does that quickly flip when running at GPU dependent resolutions? You do realize that a faster CPU raises the level at which a GPU becomes CPU limited right? Let me spell it out for you. A faster CPU is better at lower resolutions. This means you raise the framerate and performance cap at the higher resolutions.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:37:53 PM

jennyh said:
That is so much garbage.

I've said it a million times but I will say it again. The i7 is great at low resolution gaming when neither the gpu or cpu is being stressed much. Throw a difficult game at it and the Phenom II copes better.

Because the Phenom II is a better gaming cpu, and always has been.


Really?

Care to enlighten us as to how much more work the CPU has to do when you increase the resolution? What does the CPU do now anyways?

Transform, Lighting and Clipping is now on the GPU, All means of rasterizing is now relegated to the GPU. Floating point calculations which have to do with Graphics loads are all relegated to the GPU. (GPUs are even having to do Computing tasks now with DX8 and higher).

The CPU simply feeds data and the data doesn't really change as you increase the resolution. It's the same amount of data being fed at the same rate.

CPUs do handle Physics and AI as well as some other integer related tasks though.
December 16, 2009 10:38:51 PM

a b à CPUs
December 16, 2009 10:40:01 PM

dasickninja said:
God how do you breathe without killing yourself? Your argument is laughably idiotic. If the i7 is the better chip when gaming at CPU dependent resolutions, how does that quickly flip when running at GPU dependent resolutions? You do realize that a faster CPU raises the level at which a GPU becomes CPU limited right?


Look sunshine - you go test your games at 800x640, then test them at 2560x1600 and see how well your theory hold up ok?

Or did you just miss the FACT that Phenom II's are better at extreme gaming than i7's?

Read - http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=869&p=23
!