Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Core2 vs phenom II vs core i

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Which Architecture provides the best performance?

Total: 42 votes (5 blank votes)

  • Phenom II
  • 19 %
  • Core 2
  • 6 %
  • Core i
  • 76 %
a c 131 à CPUs
December 23, 2009 3:54:06 AM

Also discuss. I am interested in opinions and proof contradicting the obvious order of performance:
Core i
Core 2
Phenom II

I also want cost, heat, power consumption etc. to be a non-issue in this discussion. Ability to process only.

Still no interesting contradictions?

Oh. Now there are. 5 more AMD fanboys. None of them seem to have provided valid points that the Phenom II architecture is better than the core 2 or core i though.
So now, I bait them.

More about : core2 phenom core

December 23, 2009 4:03:57 AM

If cost is a non-issue the only other issue i can think of would be heat.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 7:06:52 AM

If we throw out cost/benefit, bang-for-buck, etc. then the i7 is of course faster. But how much faster is application dependent. In games it can sometimes fall behind the Phenom II (games involve the whole platform though not just the CPU), but as far as raw processing power is concerned it's definitely faster.

EDIT: I hope by "Core i" you mean "Core i7" because there is also Core i5 and Core i3.
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 8:20:33 AM

performance: core2 = PII < i5 < i7
cost-performance: i5 >= PII > core2 >= i7
power efficiency: i5 > core2 > i7 > PII

According to the info given by cadder, i7-920 is 52.7% more than i5 system and performance gain is minimal. Hence, you will want to avoid it unless you can get a deal of $220 or less. FYI, you can pick up 920 for just $200 if a Microcenter is nearby.
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 9:35:37 AM

andy5174 said:
According to the info given by cadder, i7-920 is 52.7% more than i5 system and performance gain is minimal. Hence, you will want to avoid it unless you can get a deal of $220 or less. FYI, you can pick up 920 for just $200 if a Microcenter is nearby.

He said he didn't care about cost, so deals don't matter ;) 
December 23, 2009 10:00:16 AM

If you don't need the power of the i7, you are obviously money conscious and would be shopping for your needs, and not boasting rights. I personally found the PII is very well priced, and does everything flattout. When the time comes that the PII becomes to slow, AMD provided this chip with a lot of headroom for OC'ing which you should also take into account, and would extend the use of the PII... My 2 drops worth
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 11:52:17 AM

Cost and other considerations aside, PII<Core 2<i7 and i5<=>i7 in clock for clock performance.

The i5 and i7 have a somewhat odd relationship.
The 'true' LGA1366 i7's Just Outperform their LGA1156 counterparts when both are forced to run at the same speed (NO turbo boost).
The i5 is exactly the same as the LGA1156 i7 with Hyper Threading Disabled.
As such, it should perform virtually identical to the LGA1156 i7's (just under the LGA1366 i7's) when 4 or less threads are in use and both are forced to run at the same speed but loses in heavily threaded apps.

When you factor in the Turbo Boost however, it gets slightly more complicated.
LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active, LGA1156 i7's can boost 133-666Mhz and the i5 can boost 133-533Mhz.
While similarly clocked i7's will still beat i5's in heavily threaded apps, the i5 has the potential to beat a LGA1366 i7 when only 1 or 2 cores are active and will either match or loose to a LGA1156 i7 (depending on which i7) under similar conditions.
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 12:00:45 PM

outlw6669 said:
Cost and other considerations aside, PII<Core 2<i7 and i5<=>i7 in clock for clock performance.

The i5 and i7 have a somewhat odd relationship.
The 'true' LGA1366 i7's Just Outperform their LGA1156 counterparts when both are forced to run at the same speed (NO turbo boost).
The i5 is exactly the same as the LGA1156 i7 with Hyper Threading Disabled.
As such, it should perform virtually identical to the LGA1156 i7's (just under the LGA1366 i7's) when 4 or less threads are in use and both are forced to run at the same speed but loses in heavily threaded apps.

When you factor in the Turbo Boost however, it gets slightly more complicated.
LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active, LGA1156 i7's can boost 133-666Mhz and the i5 can boost 133-533Mhz.
While similarly clocked i7's will still beat i5's in heavily threaded apps, the i5 has the potential to beat a LGA1366 i7 when only 1 or 2 cores are active and will either match or loose to a LGA1156 i7 (depending on which i7) under similar conditions.


+1
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 12:08:25 PM

outlw6669 said:
LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active,

From my own testing, I have concluded that the second speed bin for LGA1366 is more marketing than a real speed boost. While it does exist, 3/4 cores need to be in sleep states for >98% of the time to maintain that higher speed bin. This requires running assigning affinity of basically everything that uses CPU cycles to one core, active and background tasks. You'll probably find that allowing Windows to properly schedule threads itself yields a greater performance improvement than an extra 133MHz even in single-threaded tasks. It's also much less of a headache.
a c 131 à CPUs
December 24, 2009 3:00:20 AM

randomizer said:
EDIT: I hope by "Core i" you mean "Core i7" because there is also Core i5 and Core i3.


I thought they used the same architecture just removing hyperthreading?
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2009 3:09:34 AM

Not quite the same. LGA1156 has an on-die PCIe controller whereas LGA1366 does not. LGA1156 has a more aggressive Turbo Boost than LGA1366. There's a few other differences too. No Core i5 has the PCIe controller, but some Core i7s do (such as the i7 860) because i7 covers two platforms. I'm not sure about Core i3 as I've not looked at it much, but it's supposed to cover the low end of the market.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2009 3:32:47 AM

outlw6669 said:
Cost and other considerations aside, PII<Core 2<i7 and i5<=>i7 in clock for clock performance.

The i5 and i7 have a somewhat odd relationship.
The 'true' LGA1366 i7's Just Outperform their LGA1156 counterparts when both are forced to run at the same speed (NO turbo boost).
The i5 is exactly the same as the LGA1156 i7 with Hyper Threading Disabled.
As such, it should perform virtually identical to the LGA1156 i7's (just under the LGA1366 i7's) when 4 or less threads are in use and both are forced to run at the same speed but loses in heavily threaded apps.

When you factor in the Turbo Boost however, it gets slightly more complicated.
LGA1366 i7's can boost their speeds 133-266Mhz depending on how many cores are active, LGA1156 i7's can boost 133-666Mhz and the i5 can boost 133-533Mhz.
While similarly clocked i7's will still beat i5's in heavily threaded apps, the i5 has the potential to beat a LGA1366 i7 when only 1 or 2 cores are active and will either match or loose to a LGA1156 i7 (depending on which i7) under similar conditions.


LOL Although a complex answer, it's technically correct and detailed. :)  I like it.

+1 from me as well.
a b à CPUs
December 24, 2009 7:28:05 AM

i5 vs LGA1156-i7-870 vs LGA1366-i7-920

i7-860 vs i7-920 vs i5-750

Most of the time(video encoding included): i7-870(LGA1156) > i7-860(LGA1156) > i7-920(LGA1366) >= i5-750(LGA1156)

The 920 is surely better than 750 but difference is within 5%, so not worth looking at 920 system if the cost is 52.7% more than 750 system IMO.
a c 131 à CPUs
February 2, 2010 8:18:37 PM

randomizer said:
Not quite the same. LGA1156 has an on-die PCIe controller whereas LGA1366 does not. LGA1156 has a more aggressive Turbo Boost than LGA1366. There's a few other differences too. No Core i5 has the PCIe controller, but some Core i7s do (such as the i7 860) because i7 covers two platforms. I'm not sure about Core i3 as I've not looked at it much, but it's supposed to cover the low end of the market.

I'm sorry, I was referring to the instruction set architecture not the CPU design. So the actual architecture of the CPU, not turbo boost, controllers, cache, etc.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 8:37:38 PM

Architecture victory for speed = Intel I5 or I7

Practical use for 80% of the people (home users or businesses who run excel on their futureshop garbage HP) nothing can top the cost effectiveness of an Athlon630 on an AMD Chipset/Radeon4200
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 8:42:20 PM

andy5174 said:
performance: core2 = PII < i5 < i7
cost-performance: i5 >= PII > core2 >= i7
power efficiency: i5 > core2 > i7 > PII

According to the info given by cadder, i7-920 is 52.7% more than i5 system and performance gain is minimal. Hence, you will want to avoid it unless you can get a deal of $220 or less. FYI, you can pick up 920 for just $200 if a Microcenter is nearby.

A load of garbage, really. Let me fix that as I always have to do:

Raw power (performance) - I7>PII>I5>Core2
Bang/for/buck - PII>I7>I5>Core2
Energy drain - I5>Core2>PII>I7



Just because I7 is the most expensive doesn't mean it has a bad balance of power and price. That was an epic noob fail.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 8:43:53 PM

jerreece said:
LOL Although a complex answer, it's technically correct and detailed. :)  I like it.

+1 from me as well.

It is correct that the outdated Core2 is faster than PII and that I5 is nearly the same as i7? How many f'ing noobs are there for cry's sakes!
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 8:45:55 PM

Did you read the linked benchmarks?
It is quite true.

Perhaps stop being a fanboi n00b?
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 9:15:06 PM

I can say the same to you, but the difference will be that I am right.

And I read a lot of benchmarks, the ones posted here are not a holy Bible for benchmarking or something. One benchmark is always questionable... But noobs don't get that. I won't even TRY to post those thousand benchmarks that prove you wrong over and over because I see now that it is pointless. You just continue being irrational and post your own biased benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 9:20:04 PM

The question asked is which architecture performs the best. "Architecture" not released products.

Architecture means Performance/Clk.

I would then have to factually state the following (although the Phenom II X4 performance advantages per clk vs. the Core 2 Quad Kentsfield is not as evident as my following analysis makes it seem):

Core ix > Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) > Phenom II X4 > Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield)
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 9:26:29 PM

Phenom II is faster than all Core2's. Fact, and an undeniable one. Of course, there are always exceptions, but sometimes PII is even faster than I7 975 and nobody is counting that, so there is no reason to count exceptions on any side.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2010 9:43:53 PM

Cryslayer80 said:
Phenom II is faster than all Core2's. Fact, and an undeniable one. Of course, there are always exceptions, but sometimes PII is even faster than I7 975 and nobody is counting that, so there is no reason to count exceptions on any side.


How do you figure? Are you talking about a Phenom II X4 965 clocked at 3.4GHz vs. a Core 2 Quad Q9650 clocked at 3GHz? Of course you then would run these processors using processor intensive applications and not applications which rely mostly on other hardware components (such as games).

If so either overclock the Q9650 to 3.4GHz or down clock the Phenom II X4 965 to 3GHz and compare the two clock for clock.


The question is about the actual architectures not the shipping products.
a c 131 à CPUs
February 3, 2010 12:20:06 AM

Cryslayer80 said:
Phenom II is faster than all Core2's. Fact, and an undeniable one. Of course, there are always exceptions, but sometimes PII is even faster than I7 975 and nobody is counting that, so there is no reason to count exceptions on any side.


Fact: Crystalmark's benchmark performance is not affected by cache. My overclocked 3.2GHz athlon II got the same score in arithmetic logic unit and floating point unit benchmarks as my friend's Phenom II 955.

Athlon IIx4 620 @ 3.25GHz
Scores:
ALU: 50484
FPU: 49101

Core 2 quad Q9550 (Yorkfield) at 3.1GHz
Scores:
ALU: 57724
FPU: 58663

I don't know if anything else could have affected the scores though. But I think it's pretty obvious. But now I am interested in benching the Kentsfield with this crystalmark.
February 3, 2010 12:25:40 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
How do you figure? Are you talking about a Phenom II X4 965 clocked at 3.4GHz vs. a Core 2 Quad Q9650 clocked at 3GHz? Of course you then would run these processors using processor intensive applications and not applications which rely mostly on other hardware components (such as games).

If so either overclock the Q9650 to 3.4GHz or down clock the Phenom II X4 965 to 3GHz and compare the two clock for clock.


The question is about the actual architectures not the shipping products.


The shipping clockspeed is also a result of architecture.
a c 131 à CPUs
February 3, 2010 12:44:33 AM

Chad Boga said:
The shipping clockspeed is also a result of architecture.

So are you saying the Phenom II x4 910 C2 stepping and the Phenom II x4 965 C2 stepping have different architectures? LOL
That's like saying every single CPU has a completely different architecture. I think you fail to grasp the concept of what the architecture is. Unless I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

Oh and I think I made a mistake. Does the core i7 not use the same architecture as the core 2 processors? Intel had netburst before core. Architecture called "core", not "core 2". Netburst was introduced in 2000 and core in 2006. Now with the core i7s, they didn't change the name from core...
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2010 12:50:01 AM

Chad Boga said:
The shipping clockspeed is also a result of architecture.

Architectures can allow for a certain clock speed range (operating range) within certain specified conditions (voltage, heat etc).

But the actual clock speed with which a product functions is not inherently directly tied to it's architecture because if it were... an overclock on my processor would mean an architectural change.

Now if we look at it all from the perspective of an architecture being engineered with a certain range of clocks speeds in mind we undoubtedly must confess that overclocking yields would therefore be the best indicator of what a given architecture is capable of achieving in relation to a clock speed (and use those yields in order to form a real world statistical analysis via a scientific poll).

In doing so the end result remains no different then that which I portrayed:


Core ix > Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) > Phenom II X4 > Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield)
February 3, 2010 12:56:30 AM

enzo matrix said:
So are you saying the Phenom II x4 910 C2 stepping and the Phenom II x4 965 C2 stepping have different architectures? LOL

No, and you should have stopped there whilst you were only so far behind.

The rest of your post is just too dumb for me to bother with.
February 3, 2010 1:03:30 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
Architectures can allow for a certain clock speed range (operating range) within certain specified conditions (voltage, heat etc).

Which was what I was referring to.

Quote:
Now if we look at it all from the perspective of an architecture being engineered with a certain range of clocks speeds in mind we undoubtedly must confess that overclocking yields would therefore be the best indicator of what a given architecture is capable of achieving in relation to a clock speed (and use those yields in order to form a real world statistical analysis via a scientific poll).

CPU manufacturers have to take into account longevity of product, reliability in worst case scenario's, power and heat consumption, overclocking is not valid as a sign of architectural superiority, as it doesn't take into account these things to the same degree.

How long do these CPU's overclocked to 4+GHz actually run for at that speed, compared to how long they would run at their default speed.

What validation process do these overclocked CPU's go through compared to the validation process they are put through at their rated speeds by manufacturers?


a c 131 à CPUs
February 3, 2010 1:07:34 AM

Chad Boga said:
No, and you should have stopped there whilst you were only so far behind.

The rest of your post is just too dumb for me to bother with.


There is no need to insult me, sir. It's sad that you think helping others learn about computers is a "bother".

Netburst was an architecture that the pentium 4 CPUs used. Core was Intel's architecture after 2006.
So let me be clear, your point is that an architecture's superiority is based on the performance per clock, times the fastest clock speed the manufacturer has released it's CPU at?
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2010 1:21:11 AM

Chad Boga said:
Which was what I was referring to.

Quote:
Now if we look at it all from the perspective of an architecture being engineered with a certain range of clocks speeds in mind we undoubtedly must confess that overclocking yields would therefore be the best indicator of what a given architecture is capable of achieving in relation to a clock speed (and use those yields in order to form a real world statistical analysis via a scientific poll).

CPU manufacturers have to take into account longevity of product, reliability in worst case scenario's, power and heat consumption, overclocking is not valid as a sign of architectural superiority, as it doesn't take into account these things to the same degree.

How long do these CPU's overclocked to 4+GHz actually run for at that speed, compared to how long they would run at their default speed.

What validation process do these overclocked CPU's go through compared to the validation process they are put through at their rated speeds by manufacturers?

What you are doing in that case is that you're assuming that all of the players in question (in this case AMD and Intel being the two major players) operate by the same rules.

If anything, Intel's process technology is superior to that of AMD and this does show when you take retail samples from both and overclock them.

That having been said the way both AMD and Intel calculate the other requirements (Heat, Power Consumption etc) is quite subjective. There is a lot of talk about the variances in how AMD and Intel differentiate when it comes to TDP.

Therefore to assume that a Q9650 is only clocked at 3GHz because of architectural setbacks which don't affect the Phenom II X4 (which currently is clocked up to 3.4GHz with the 965BE) is illogical.

Architecture wise both Penryn/Yorkfield do and can, on average, reach far higher operating clocks using the same or equivalent air cooling method than the Deneb architecture from AMD.

This is even more true, statistically speaking, when we compare Nehalem to Deneb.

Current market incentives are pushing AMD to clock Deneb higher in order to keep up with the competition while these same market incentives are pushing Intel to do the opposite.

This results in lower yields for AMD as well as more defective products but a more competitive product. For Intel this results, in theory, to higher yields, less defective products and higher profits.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2010 1:45:08 AM

enzo matrix said:
There is no need to insult me, sir. It's sad that you think helping others learn about computers is a "bother".

Netburst was an architecture that the pentium 4 CPUs used. Core was Intel's architecture after 2006.
So let me be clear, your point is that an architecture's superiority is based on the performance per clock, times the fastest clock speed the manufacturer has released it's CPU at?


Netburst was the architecture used by late P4s. After Netburst came Core, and after Core came Penryn (aka 45nm Core 2, although Penryn was still somewhat under the overall "Core" umbrella). Then Nehalem (45nm i7/i5), and now Westmere (32nm i3-i7, which is still somewhat within the "Nehalem" category).
February 3, 2010 1:48:34 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
What you are doing in that case is that you're assuming that all of the players in question (in this case AMD and Intel being the two major players) operate by the same rules.

If anything, Intel's process technology is superior to that of AMD and this does show when you take retail samples from both and overclock them.

That having been said the way both AMD and Intel calculate the other requirements (Heat, Power Consumption etc) is quite subjective. There is a lot of talk about the variances in how AMD and Intel differentiate when it comes to TDP.

Therefore to assume that a Q9650 is only clocked at 3GHz because of architectural setbacks which don't affect the Phenom II X4 (which currently is clocked up to 3.4GHz with the 965BE) is illogical.

Architecture wise both Penryn/Yorkfield do and can, on average, reach far higher operating clocks using the same or equivalent air cooling method than the Deneb architecture from AMD.

This is even more true, statistically speaking, when we compare Nehalem to Deneb.

Current market incentives are pushing AMD to clock Deneb higher in order to keep up with the competition while these same market incentives are pushing Intel to do the opposite.

This results in lower yields for AMD as well as more defective products but a more competitive product. For Intel this results, in theory, to higher yields, less defective products and higher profits.

Shipping products at their rated speeds are real, the rest is conjecture.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2010 1:53:26 AM

Chad Boga said:
Shipping products at their rated speeds are real, the rest is conjecture.

But this entire topic is not about shipping products.

This entire topic is about the architectures behind current shipping products.
a c 131 à CPUs
February 3, 2010 1:55:32 AM

cjl said:
Netburst was the architecture used by late P4s. After Netburst came Core, and after Core came Penryn (aka 45nm Core 2, although Penryn was still somewhat under the overall "Core" umbrella). Then Nehalem (45nm i7/i5), and now Westmere (32nm i3-i7, which is still somewhat within the "Nehalem" category).

Thanks. :) 
February 3, 2010 1:59:35 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
But this entire topic is not about shipping products.

This entire topic is about the architectures behind current shipping products.


Yes, but clockspeeds are still a factor of the architecture.

In the past we have had DEC's Alpha chip squaring off against HP's PA-Risc chip, where they had similar performance but a massive difference in clockspeed due to the intentional design choices the respective architects took.

Sometimes they go the speedrace route and other times they don't, but one shouldn't be ignoring achievable shipping clockspeeds as an aspect of the architecture.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2010 2:23:28 AM

Chad Boga said:
Yes, but clockspeeds are still a factor of the architecture.

In the past we have had DEC's Alpha chip squaring off against HP's PA-Risc chip, where they had similar performance but a massive difference in clockspeed due to the intentional design choices the respective architects took.

Sometimes they go the speedrace route and other times they don't, but one shouldn't be ignoring achievable shipping clockspeeds as an aspect of the architecture.

I think you're missing the point and perhaps it might be best for you to sit down and reflect on it some more.

Shipping clock speeds are a factor of an architecture in the sense that the shipping clock speeds are within acceptable parameters (subjectively determined by their maker).

Would AMD prefer to sell a Phenom II X4 965 at a clock speed of 3GHz (assuming it performed better per clk and could compete with the competition at those speeds)? The answer is most definitely yes.

Can a retail sample of a Phenom II X4 scale higher on average in terms of clockspeed (headroom wise when overclocking) than a Yorkfield based Core 2 Quad? The answer is most definitely no.

When Intel launched it's Yorkfield based Core 2 Quad lineup... what did the competition have to counter? The answer is most definitely lower clocked original Phenom architecture based processors (Barcelona).

What incentive did Intel have to release a higher clocked variant of their Yorkfield Core 2 Quad lineup when the competition didn't have anything to compete? None.

Historically speaking, when the competition did have something to compete.. how has Intel behaved? Well if we go back to the Pentium !!! Coppermine, Intel pushed the acceptable limits of their 0.18u architecture in releasing a 1.13GHz variant (which was subsequently recalled) in order to compete with the AMD Athlon (K7) Thunderbird processors.

So if Intel's past behavior is any indication, they will push the envelope when absolutely needed. If we couple that with the fact that selling lower clock variants of processors when your competition has nothing to offer to counter results in better yields (which means less defective units to trash) and as such higher profits and lower rates of defective units after the fact then one could conclude that this is most probably why Yorkfield was clocked as low as it was.

Not because the architecture couldn't scale higher in terms of clock speed but rather because there was no "need" for it (no incentive).

If you can't see the obvious logic behind my entire thought process then yes.. take a breather and think about it for a bit.
February 3, 2010 2:31:31 AM

ElMoIsEviL said:
I think you're missing the point and perhaps it might be best for you to sit down and reflect on it some more.

Shipping clock speeds are a factor of an architecture in the sense that the shipping clock speeds are within acceptable parameters (subjectively determined by their maker).

Would AMD prefer to sell a Phenom II X4 965 at a clock speed of 3GHz (assuming it performed better per clk and could compete with the competition at those speeds)? The answer is most definitely yes.

Can a retail sample of a Phenom II X4 scale higher on average in terms of clockspeed (headroom wise when overclocking) than a Yorkfield based Core 2 Quad? The answer is most definitely no.

When Intel launched it's Yorkfield based Core 2 Quad lineup... what did the competition have to counter? The answer is most definitely lower clocked original Phenom architecture based processors (Barcelona).

What incentive did Intel have to release a higher clocked variant of their Yorkfield Core 2 Quad lineup when the competition didn't have anything to compete? None.

Historically speaking, when the competition did have something to compete.. how has Intel behaved? Well if we go back to the Pentium !!! Coppermine, Intel pushed the acceptable limits of their 0.18u architecture in releasing a 1.13GHz variant (which was subsequently recalled) in order to compete with the AMD Athlon (K7) Thunderbird processors.

So if Intel's past behavior is any indication, they will push the envelope when absolutely needed. If we couple that with the fact that selling lower clock variants of processors when your competition has nothing to offer to counter results in better yields (which means less defective units to trash) and as such higher profits and lower rates of defective units after the fact then one could conclude that this is most probably why Yorkfield was clocked as low as it was.

Not because the architecture couldn't scale higher in terms of clock speed but rather because there was no "need" for it (no incentive).

If you can't see the obvious logic behind my entire thought process then yes.. take a breather and think about it for a bit.

Shipping clockspeeds are real, everything else is conjecture.


a b à CPUs
February 3, 2010 10:29:04 AM

Wow, looks like I missed all the fun!
Stupid sleep :pfff: 

Cryslayer80 said:
I won't even TRY to post those thousand benchmarks that prove you wrong over and over because I see now that it is pointless. You just continue being irrational and post your own biased benchmarks.

Sorry, I fail to see how I am being irrational :heink: 
Looking thorough subjective benchmarks and drawing conclusions from imperial data seems pretty rational to me.

Please DO post some of your 'thousands' of benchmarks.
If I find more or better information supports your stance, I would be happy to modify my views.
My views are based on facts and measurements, not any type of bias for any company.
Cryslayer80 said:
Phenom II is faster than all Core2's. Fact, and an undeniable one. Of course, there are always exceptions, but sometimes PII is even faster than I7 975 and nobody is counting that, so there is no reason to count exceptions on any side.

[:bohleyk:7]

Got proof?
Real benchmarks are preferred.
A small collection of cherry picked Phenom II wins will not work to support your claims.
Remember, whe are comparing all CPU's at the exact same speed...
Chad Boga said:
Shipping products at their rated speeds are real, the rest is conjecture.

Chad Boga said:
Yes, but clockspeeds are still a factor of the architecture.

Chad Boga said:
Shipping clockspeeds are real, everything else is conjecture.

You seem to be missing or distorting the point of this thread.
While it is somewhat true that the CPU speed is tied to the architecture, that is not what is being compared.
We are looking at the efficiency of these architectures, not performance by released modles.
By efficiency we are specifically comparing how the different architectures perform on a clock-for-clock basis.
That is to say, when all the architectures are running under the same conditions (matching the Clock Speeds, RAM, GPU, HD, etc. as closely as possible), which architecture is most efficient (can get the most work done in a set number of cycles).
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2010 1:20:33 PM


You seem to be missing or distorting the point of this thread.
While it is somewhat true that the CPU speed is tied to the architecture, that is not what is being compared.
We are looking at the [i said:
efficiency of these architectures, not performance by released modles.
By efficiency we are specifically comparing how the different architectures perform on a clock-for-clock basis.
That is to say, when all the architectures are running under the same conditions (matching the Clock Speeds, RAM, GPU, HD, etc. as closely as possible), which architecture is most efficient (can get the most work done in a set number of cycles).]
You seem to be missing or distorting the point of this thread.
While it is somewhat true that the CPU speed is tied to the architecture, that is not what is being compared.
We are looking at the efficiency of these architectures, not performance by released modles.
By efficiency we are specifically comparing how the different architectures perform on a clock-for-clock basis.
That is to say, when all the architectures are running under the same conditions (matching the Clock Speeds, RAM, GPU, HD, etc. as closely as possible), which architecture is most efficient (can get the most work done in a set number of cycles).
[/i]

+1.

Hey chad,

What where talking about is how efficient is the architecture is.

Example, Lets say i have an core 2 quad and a core i7.

We know the core i7's beat the core 2 quads at the same GHz but we want to know how much more efficient is the "Nehalem" architecture over the "Core" architecture.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=47&p2=51
!