Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gaming CPU: i7 or phenom?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Intel i7
  • Phenom
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Pick one from each of the three groups.

Total: 60 votes (14 blank votes)

  • phenom II 955
  • 28 %
  • Other?
  • 5 %
  • ____________
  • 2 %
  • Phenom II 965
  • 12 %
  • i5 750
  • 17 %
  • Other?
  • 0 %
  • ____________
  • 2 %
  • Phenom II 1090t
  • 17 %
  • i7 930
  • 18 %
  • Other?
  • 5 %
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 3:23:51 PM

Please actually read this post before posting a response or voting.

This question is actually about various price segments. So please include a section for each in your argument because I am not sure of price range to be looked at yet.
Please vote for one of each. You get three votes. Vote for one in each of the following groups:

1. Anyone have any argument against the 955 being a for sure winner at its price?

2. i5 750 or phenom II 965?

3. i7 930 or phenom II 1090t?

-Feel free to include benchmarks but please link to them, do no embed pictures.
-If you need a graphics card to assume, assume a radeon 5870.
-do not repeat arguments. This gets redundant. If you have something to say, either make it something new, or provide new evidence.
-price comes into factor but there are variances. Please assume the 965=i5 (I know the i5 is a bit more expensive but for the sake of this argument) and that the i7 930=1090t in cost.
-If you vote, please also give a reason. No one likes a mystery. Now I'm wondering, for example, what this "other" thing is that is a better choice than the 955 in that pricerange.
-Ok so Let's all just use newegg.com as the standard for pricing. Without MIRs. Just so we can stay consistent.

More about : gaming cpu phenom

April 30, 2010 4:12:55 PM

Would like to see the result of the 3rd one

Good thinking Enzo
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 4:17:14 PM

reason why i said other for the 955 is because of the 1055T on sale for 150 dollars MIR

other wise amd has the lower end and medium-upper end locked down with this, until intel get their head out of their asses and release a $300 dollar 6 core i7, this will stay the same, you can easily OC something, but not so much adding cores (unless it was disabled)
Related resources
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 4:22:58 PM

theholylancer said:
reason why i said other for the 955 is because of the 1055T on sale for 150 dollars MIR

other wise amd has the lower end and medium-upper end locked down with this, until intel get their head out of their asses and release a $300 dollar 6 core i7, this will stay the same, you can easily OC something, but not so much adding cores (unless it was disabled)

enzo matrix said:
Please actually read this post before posting a response or voting.
-price comes into factor but there are variances. Please assume the 965=i5 (I know the i5 is a bit more expensive but for the sake of this argument) and that the i7 930=1090t in cost.

Obviously I am not talking about isolated price changes but current market prices.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 5:02:01 PM

How can there be 10 boxes and only 8 choices?

I think your poll is a little bit flawed enzo. Ok wait I think I get it now...assuming the count as the box above it...

Oh anyway my evidence is pretty clear - last time THG benchmarked a bunch of cpu's, the i7 870 lost to the Phenom II 965 every time.

Every single time.

12/12 losses.

Now the 1090T is gonna be faster than the 965, or thereabouts. And we know the i7 870 is a faster cpu than the i7 930 and the i5 750 soooo.
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 5:07:17 PM

jennyh said:
How can there be 10 boxes and only 8 choices?

I think your poll is a little bit flawed enzo. Ok wait I think I get it now...assuming the count as the box above it...

Yeah those are just... separators. lol.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 5:10:27 PM

enzo matrix said:
Yeah those are just... separators. lol.


I was a bit thrown by you not using a capital p on the Phenom first time lol :D 
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 5:23:01 PM

jennyh said:
How can there be 10 boxes and only 8 choices?

I think your poll is a little bit flawed enzo. Ok wait I think I get it now...assuming the count as the box above it...

Oh anyway my evidence is pretty clear - last time THG benchmarked a bunch of cpu's, the i7 870 lost to the Phenom II 965 every time.

Every single time.

12/12 losses.

Now the 1090T is gonna be faster than the 965, or thereabouts. And we know the i7 870 is a faster cpu than the i7 930 and the i5 750 soooo.


Its not accepted the 1090 is as fast as the 965 especially in gaming , where almost every launch review has it performing worse than the 965 and the i5 750 (a 149.99 cpu at microcenter,1/2 its price?), that price may be irrelevant but so is the 1 day MIR offered by TigerD for the hex's. This is AMD's way of countering last quarters, amd cpu share loss.
The test linked to was to show a high clock dual core was able to drive a 5850 as well or better than slower clocked tri and quad cores. Its safe to say that logic will extend to even slower clocked 6 cores. Which , in some tests, dual cores will beat these 6 cores in gaming.
Core us, core performance, clock speed. The new AMD cpu's work with turbo, so they are going to be subject to different results in varying conditions.

I voted the I7-930~ Its proven in almost all reviews, single or crossfire, its near the top.
And used as the standard in countless reviews as a cpu(o/c, 16x,16x) not going to bottleneck any setup.
April 30, 2010 5:38:38 PM

Even if we accept the 1090 is a little slower than the 965, we know the 930 is a little slower than the 870 too.

To lose all twelve benchmarks, and not only that but to lose to the x3 also? I agree with jennyh, there is something wrong with these i7 cpus in some games.
a c 131 à CPUs
April 30, 2010 5:59:21 PM

jennyh said:
Every single time.

12/12 losses.

Now the 1090T is gonna be faster than the 965, or thereabouts. And we know the i7 870 is a faster cpu than the i7 930 and the i5 750 soooo.

Hmm interesting.
I'd like to call into question the actual 1156 platform. Could there be something there reducing performance? I'm just opening up that possibility. It does seem that this i7 loses by more of a margin than what I would consider "margin of error" or "GPU bottleneck" in some of those games. What do you all think?
The more I read about this core i3, the more appealing the processor seems aswell...
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 6:34:04 PM

jennyh said:
How can there be 10 boxes and only 8 choices?

I think your poll is a little bit flawed enzo. Ok wait I think I get it now...assuming the count as the box above it...

Oh anyway my evidence is pretty clear - last time THG benchmarked a bunch of cpu's, the i7 870 lost to the Phenom II 965 every time.

Every single time.

12/12 losses.

Now the 1090T is gonna be faster than the 965, or thereabouts. And we know the i7 870 is a faster cpu than the i7 930 and the i5 750 soooo.


[1] First of all, the 870 got creamed by the 965 in GAMING. So let us concentrate solely on gaming benchmarks
Your statement that "the 1090T is gonna be faster than the 965" is then, categorical bullcrap, since THG itself confirmed that the 1090T is slower than the 965 in gaming. You are taking results out of context & quoting them at your will.
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 6:38:53 PM

Are we talking stock clocks or can we include overclocking as a factor in our vote?
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 9:41:45 PM

ksampanna said:
[1] First of all, the 870 got creamed by the 965 in GAMING. So let us concentrate solely on gaming benchmarks


Fair enough.

Quote:
Your statement that "the 1090T is gonna be faster than the 965" is then, categorical bullcrap, since THG itself confirmed that the 1090T is slower than the 965 in gaming. You are taking results out of context & quoting them at your will.


Thing is, I'm not taking THG as gospel on anything. I've been around long enough to see THG's benchmarks make somewhere between very little and zero sense on many ocassions. That's why I take them over the whole. I mean...I read every single review on Thuban this week. ALL of them. I also have a very good memory.

I'm not saying the 1090T is definitely ahead of the 965 BE overall all gaming benchmarks. But I think it is. In fact, as there isn't much holding me back from counting the totals up, I'll do just that. :) 
April 30, 2010 10:26:18 PM

I say other....Go with the i7 860
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 10:43:41 PM

foxmulder13 said:
I say other....Go with the i7 860


You would prefer an 870 on 1156 over a 930 on 1366?

I'm only answering/explaining answer 1 for now (at work):

Keep the Phenom II 955.

AMD has done a marvelous thing for gamers with this chip. At its price range it is easily in a league of its own. High stocks make it good for non overclockers and overclockers can do it on lame-o hardware thanks to the unlocked multi.
a c 131 à CPUs
May 1, 2010 3:09:06 AM

Raidur said:
Are we talking stock clocks or can we include overclocking as a factor in our vote?

If you want to include overclocking, then yes but do not compare overclocked to stock for value. If you are going to overclock the 965, also overclock the i5. Do not do something like comparing the 965 overclocked to a stock i5.
May 1, 2010 3:11:05 AM

17 870 is a better choice then the 860 but almost twice the price and not that much faster
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2010 3:20:27 AM

foxmulder13 said:
17 870 is a better choice then the 860 but almost twice the price and not that much faster


Neither the 870 or 860 were options.

enzo matrix said:
If you want to include overclocking, then yes but do not compare overclocked to stock for value. If you are going to overclock the 965, also overclock the i5. Do not do something like comparing the 965 overclocked to a stock i5.


Yeah, comparing a stock vs OC is only good to show it can beat a more expensive CPU at stock. The only thing an OC should be compared to on a CPU is itself (IMO).
May 3, 2010 3:34:30 AM

Does anyone else think there was something wrong with toms review of the 1090t? The reason i say this, like i said before, is because when they overclocked the 1090t it performed worse than stock which makes nooooooo sense whatsoever unless there wasn't enough power getting to the board. Clocked at 3.4ghz, it should perform better than a 965.
a c 131 à CPUs
May 3, 2010 5:46:55 AM

yannifb said:
Does anyone else think there was something wrong with toms review of the 1090t? The reason i say this, like i said before, is because when they overclocked the 1090t it performed worse than stock which makes nooooooo sense whatsoever unless there wasn't enough power getting to the board. Clocked at 3.4ghz, it should perform better than a 965.

When did they do any tests on the overclocked chip? I only saw stock.
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2010 6:49:55 AM

Ok, part 2. i5-750 vs Phenom II 965

Lets start with price.

The 965 is currently $184, and i5 is $199 on "newegg.com". Factor in the ~$40 premium on comparable motherboards and i5 is $40-65 more expensive.

*Note* Microcenter(.com) sells i5-750's for $150, but this doesn't apply to everyone as this is a walk-in price only and store locations are limited. *Note*

These 2 chips appear to run pretty similar in gaming.

Some games favor i5, some favor the 965. The differences are sometimes significant, but usually not enough to warrant one over the other. Unless of course this is the only game you plan on playing. :) 

Here is a game that favors Intel over AMD.



As you can see the difference even the Q9400 @ 2.4ghz beats the 965, but the game is still playable on both chips.

Here is a game that favors AMD over Intel.



As you can see the 965 is able to take on even the i7 extreme, but the game is still playable on both chips, again.

On many setups, you will not be able to tell the difference between i5 and the 965, here is an example in Crysis using a 5850.



As you can see the difference is insignificant.

So is the slightly more expensive i5-750 worth it? It could be.

For those of you that need or will need 5870 crossfire or better, it seems i5 makes more sense. Take a look at these benchmarks when there is more GPU to play with.




Remember, this is with 5870 crossfire. You will need a LOT of GPU power to tell the difference between these CPUs, but the difference is there.

Something worth noting. If you are one of those with an eyefinity or 30" setup using a resolution of 2500x1600 or more, Phenom II seems work even and sometimes a little better than the i5-750 (however nothing significant). Here are those same last 2 benchmarks we saw, but in the 30" resolution.




Another thing to note is 1156's lack of full 16x dual pcie lanes. You are stuck with 8x/8x or 16x/4x if you use the i5-750. This is a disadvantage compared to AM3's capability of 16x/16x, but it could be argued that 8x is more than enough. Lets see!




On a 4x 2.0 slot the 5870 loses 5% and the GTX480 7%. Meaning a card needing twice the bandwidth of a 5870 would only lose 5% performance on an 8x slot (technically). If you ask me Phenom II AND i5 will be bottlenecked before the 8x slot is (significantly). This brings me onto my next point. Upgrade path.

If you go with i5 you'll currently have an upgrade path of an i7-8xx. Pretty much HT[hyper threading] (not including clocks/multis) is all you'll gain. We were all expecting Sandy Bridge to be 1156 compatible, but late news shows that our expectations didn't hold much water. I don't believe anything is set in stone, but as the looks of it Sandy Bridge will not be compatible with 1156.

AM3 however looks to be getting BullDozer support (that doesn't mean EVERY AM3 motherboard), so this could be plus over i5 depending on the out-come.

So there you have it. Due to the slight price difference the Phenom II 965 could be your chip of choice if you decide to use a single high end GPU or dual mid range GPUs.

If you are using dual high end GPUs or a dual GPU high end like the 5970, i5-750 could be your game. Do remember however, if you are using a super-high resolution the GPU will again be the bottleneck (this will change with higher end GPUs, but by then we'll all probably be on newer CPUs hehe) and the Phenom II will work just as well as the i5-750.

Another thing I left out is overclocking. Both chips will overclock to about 4ghz, and the 5870 crossfire benchmarks I have shown are clock for clock. This is a fair comparison for those planning on overclocking, so use that for your overclocking info needs. :) 

Oh yeah my vote. I voted for the i5, due to the higher IPC. I'm a GPU junkie and I would oc the 750 to 4ghz and run 5870 crossfire gloriously. Then hopefully have enough IPC for the next gen.

Phew.
a b à CPUs
May 3, 2010 5:45:28 PM

F
yannifb said:
Does anyone else think there was something wrong with toms review of the 1090t? The reason i say this, like i said before, is because when they overclocked the 1090t it performed worse than stock which makes nooooooo sense whatsoever unless there wasn't enough power getting to the board. Clocked at 3.4ghz, it should perform better than a 965.


There was definitely something flawed with tom's benches that time around. It didn't quite reflect what other reviews were showing, in terms of gaming.
a c 131 à CPUs
May 3, 2010 10:46:40 PM

Raidur said:
There was definitely something flawed with tom's benches that time around. It didn't quite reflect what other reviews were showing, in terms of gaming.

I agree with this. I found myself disappointed with thuban after reading toms. But my views of the other reviews made me mildly to fairly impressed.
!