Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 750 Vs Phenom II x 4 955 for gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 22, 2010 11:02:06 AM

I'm trying to decide what CPU to choose for gaming, I will be coupling it up to an sapphire HD5770, G.Skill 1600 DDR3 Ram

The price between the two is not that different, and Im wondering which processor will give the best performance for gaming, internet use, and overlocking?

Thanks

More about : 750 phenom 955 gaming

a c 102 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 22, 2010 11:40:08 AM

For gaming & overclocking I would go for a dual core AMD 550 (Black Edition for overclocking) or intel G6950 as both overclock great and neither should bottleneck a single 5770.
Related resources
a c 133 à CPUs
May 22, 2010 12:49:18 PM

simon12 said:
For gaming & overclocking I would go for a dual core AMD 550 (Black Edition for overclocking) or intel G6950 as both overclock great and neither should bottleneck a single 5770.

NO NO NO Please do not get a dual core there is no reason with all the quad core options out there to get a dual core CPU especially the Phenom II 550 it is overpriced and IMO pointless to buy in todays market.

If starting a new gaming rig you need a good quad core no matter how you look at it quad core is the way to go more and more games will start using these quad cores to their max soon and being on a dual core CPU when this happens will suck.


adam_x_brookes said:
I'm trying to decide what CPU to choose for gaming, I will be coupling it up to an sapphire HD5770, G.Skill 1600 DDR3 Ram

The price between the two is not that different, and Im wondering which processor will give the best performance for gaming, internet use, and overlocking?

Thanks


In Gaming the I5 750 and the Phenom II 955 are about the same performance but the I5 750 is faster clock for clock so if you overclock the I5 it will kill the 955 even if you were to clock the 955BE to it highest OC the I5 still wins now the drawback is cost of motherboard for an Intel system you can expect to spend about $100 more on the system.
May 22, 2010 2:14:16 PM

@ saaiello: did you know that you can put period in the middle of a paragraph?
Just kidding :lol: 

To answer the OP's question, the i5-750 is better than the 955 at gaming, although, as simon says, it would be fairly hard to bottleneck a weak(er) graphics card like the 5770.
May 22, 2010 2:44:32 PM

i5-750 and Phenom II x 4 955 is not the same.
i5-750's performance is better than Phenom II x 4 955, and even slightly better than Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition.

Here's the CPU heirarchy chart 2010 of tomshardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-core-i5-...

and look for the review of Phenom x4... uhm... I will give you Phenom x6 for better understanding which to get
http://www.techspot.com/review/269-amd-phenom2-x6-1090T...

tbh, I'm a i5-750 user and I did alot of research before purchasing it, this is a article you must see for overclock it. Perfect and efficiency is what tomshardware aim for.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-750-efficie...


i5-750 is the answer, and 1600mhz dram only if you plan to overclock your processor or else it will stay 1333mhz as default speed.
a b à CPUs
May 22, 2010 4:30:16 PM

adam_x_brookes said:
I'm trying to decide what CPU to choose for gaming, I will be coupling it up to an sapphire HD5770, G.Skill 1600 DDR3 Ram

The price between the two is not that different, and Im wondering which processor will give the best performance for gaming, internet use, and overlocking?

Thanks

The i7 is wayyy better for gaming. A good p55 board+750 would be pricier than the AMD equivalent, but offer great stock performance & very good OCing.
As arterius2 it would also be pricier by about $100, but every penny worth the price.
a c 133 à CPUs
May 22, 2010 10:31:24 PM

steddy said:
@ saaiello: did you know that you can put period in the middle of a paragraph?
Just kidding :lol:  .

LOL yea could of used one in there somewhere. Cut me some slack I had not even drank a cup a coffee yet when I posted it was still brewing. :lol: 
May 22, 2010 10:55:34 PM

If you go i5 make sure you get a p55 mobo thats important. All the reviews say that thing is badass. Alternatively, with AMD, you could probably get the 300 6 core and a mobo for the same price or the 200 dollar one if you wanted to go cheaper. The clocks are lower on the 6core, but it will shread stuff where the cores are in use.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 22, 2010 11:19:57 PM

In most games, where performance is mostly determined by the GPU, you will see no visible difference between those two CPUs. In your place, I'd consider anything else I might do besides gaming. If the answer is "nothing, really" then I'd get the 955BE. That's because I'd be able to get a mobo that offered SATA 6gb/s and USB3.0 without cutting into my available PCI Express lanes, and still have the option for at least x8,x8 Crossfire. If, however, you were going to do pro-level video encoding, format conversions, and other CPU-heavy tasks, the i5-750 would be the better performer, or you could get an i7-860.
May 22, 2010 11:28:46 PM

Phenom II X4 955 simply because it's cheaper than Intel , you get true Sata 6Gbs and USB 3 lower cost platform (890FX same price as many P55 motherboards and has 16X 16X crossfire).
May 22, 2010 11:31:24 PM

steddy said:
...the i5-750 is better than the 955 at gaming...

Heh no.
May 22, 2010 11:34:53 PM

ksampanna said:
The i7 is wayyy better for gaming. A good p55 board+750 would be pricier than the AMD equivalent, but offer great stock performance & very good OCing.
As arterius2 it would also be pricier by about $100, but every penny worth the price.

The i7 usually have the same performance in games.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2010 6:43:53 AM

Quote:

The i7 usually have the same performance in games.


Don't know where you got that from, or which crap review you've read, but it's ridiculously wrong. You are embarrassing yourself.


May 23, 2010 8:28:32 AM

IMO i think the 955 is more future proof
May 23, 2010 12:04:20 PM

ksampanna said:
Quote:

The i7 usually have the same performance in games.


Don't know where you got that from, or which crap review you've read, but it's ridiculously wrong. You are embarrassing yourself.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=47
Almost always the same except for Far Cry 2.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...
Look at the results for Crysis with the 965 and the i7 930 look at the results.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...
In this one the i7 980X is beaten by the 965.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...
Almost all the same results.
So your looking like an idiot.

BTW: I know the i7 930-920 beats it in some games but it's still small for such a price (except for 980X).
a c 102 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 23, 2010 1:03:39 PM

saaiello said:
NO NO NO Please do not get a dual core there is no reason with all the quad core options out there to get a dual core CPU especially the Phenom II 550 it is overpriced and IMO pointless to buy in todays market.

If starting a new gaming rig you need a good quad core no matter how you look at it quad core is the way to go more and more games will start using these quad cores to their max soon and being on a dual core CPU when this happens will suck.




In Gaming the I5 750 and the Phenom II 955 are about the same performance but the I5 750 is faster clock for clock so if you overclock the I5 it will kill the 955 even if you were to clock the 955BE to it highest OC the I5 still wins now the drawback is cost of motherboard for an Intel system you can expect to spend about $100 more on the system.


If you look at the Building A Balanced Gaming PC part 3 guide you will see you need at least an overclocked 5870 card to get any performance increase from an old core 2 to an i5 750. If the main use of the PC is gaming get a cheaper CPU and a better GPU.
a c 123 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 23, 2010 3:55:42 PM

Good summary from simon12. People can argue back and forth for days, and there will be titles where there's a difference (one way or the other), but most of the time, performance will ultimately come down to the GPU. Any current quad you get will be powerful enough for games; I suspect that is even true of the new 45W models.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2010 3:55:58 PM

Userremoved said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=47
Almost always the same except for Far Cry 2.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...
Look at the results for Crysis with the 965 and the i7 930 look at the results.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...
In this one the i7 980X is beaten by the 965.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-ii-x6-10...
Almost all the same results.
So your looking like an idiot.

BTW: I know the i7 930-920 beats it in some games but it's still small for such a price (except for 980X).


OK dumbass, listen. This forum is about 750 v/s 955 (Nine hundred FIFETY FIVE <9 - 5 - 5>). You've posted charts of the 965 (Nine hundred SIXTY FIVE
<9 - 6 - 5 >), about which we're not even talking.

So you first post a 955 - 920 comparo, then mix up 955 & 965, & post 965's benchmarks (instead of the 955's).

In the future, try & read each forum carefully before making a mickey of yourself.

a b à CPUs
May 23, 2010 4:00:03 PM

965 and 955 are hardly different ksampanna. Calm down.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2010 4:36:21 PM

Well they're not so similar that you can post one's charts for the other. That's preposterious.
May 23, 2010 4:47:37 PM

First of ll a 0.2Ghz difference is not big. Second your talking about the i7 when your supposed to talk about the i5 750. Third this is taken from the rules:
Quote:
Harass, threaten, embarrass or insult other users, including sending unwanted messages, attacking race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Ad hominem attacks are not permitted.
you insulted me. So please don't rage next time.

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`
OK LISTEN THIS IS ABOUT THE I FIVE SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2010 5:05:34 PM

That's obviously a typo, I mean to say i5 750, not i7. Can't you tell that by the rest of the post...?

Secondly , I respect the rules & don't mean to hurt anyone. So I'm sorry if I've offended you. But I maintain that you're wrong. Suggesting that 750 is similar to 955 in gaming is one thing, posting 965 for 955 is another & is laughable.

Thirdly, even you called me an idiot. So does that mean you're "Harass, threaten, embarrass or insult"ing me, & I should report you ? :lol: 

N try not to be a cry baby next time.
May 23, 2010 5:18:46 PM

But I did not call you an idiot I was joking and since you dont believe me go ask other members and go look at the benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2010 5:29:15 PM

saaiello said:
NO NO NO Please do not get a dual core there is no reason with all the quad core options out there to get a dual core CPU especially the Phenom II 550 it is overpriced and IMO pointless to buy in todays market.

If starting a new gaming rig you need a good quad core no matter how you look at it quad core is the way to go more and more games will start using these quad cores to their max soon and being on a dual core CPU when this happens will suck.




In Gaming the I5 750 and the Phenom II 955 are about the same performance but the I5 750 is faster clock for clock so if you overclock the I5 it will kill the 955 even if you were to clock the 955BE to it highest OC the I5 still wins now the drawback is cost of motherboard for an Intel system you can expect to spend about $100 more on the system.



I do not agree with your post all the way. There is still a market for dual cores - especially good wattage ones like 45 TDP AMD that is coming out. While it may not be absolutely performance based - lets not generalize all dual cores as a waste because of the growing quad market.

EDIT: especially since he is going to drop a 5770 into his rig - not something crazy like a 5890.
a c 133 à CPUs
May 24, 2010 9:13:44 AM

werxen said:
I do not agree with your post all the way. There is still a market for dual cores - especially good wattage ones like 45 TDP AMD that is coming out. While it may not be absolutely performance based - lets not generalize all dual cores as a waste because of the growing quad market.

EDIT: especially since he is going to drop a 5770 into his rig - not something crazy like a 5890.

Ok well if money is tight and all that can be afforded is a dual core fine the performance of higher end dual cores will still offer plenty of gaming performance. In reality the games of today and the future will be able to take advantage of more than just 2 cores and even still with a lower end GPU a quad core is the way to go. The OP is asking between I5 750 and Phenom II 955 so when simon is suggesting getting a dual core over either of the two quad cores the OP is asking about it doesn't make sense to me If anything at the very least I would get an x3 chip be it a Phenom or Athlon. It just makes more sense to get the quad thats my opinion and later down the road when the HD 5850's come down in price his rig will be ready for it.

To me building a new rig isn't just about the present, I like to at least look into a little bit of future proofing even though I know there really is no such thing as future proof.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
May 24, 2010 9:41:04 AM

saaiello said:
Ok well if money is tight and all that can be afforded is a dual core fine the performance of higher end dual cores will still offer plenty of gaming performance. In reality the games of today and the future will be able to take advantage of more than just 2 cores and even still with a lower end GPU a quad core is the way to go. The OP is asking between I5 750 and Phenom II 955 so when simon is suggesting getting a dual core over either of the two quad cores the OP is asking about it doesn't make sense to me If anything at the very least I would get an x3 chip be it a Phenom or Athlon. It just makes more sense to get the quad thats my opinion and later down the road when the HD 5850's come down in price his rig will be ready for it.

To me building a new rig isn't just about the present, I like to at least look into a little bit of future proofing even though I know there really is no such thing as future proof.


OK your point about if you upgrade the graphics in the future is valid (though upgrading a 5770 to a 5850 doesn't make much sense unless you can sell the old one an upgrade to 2 x 5770 would be far better). But my point is on a gaming PC you need to spend nearly as much on the GPU as the CPU & motherboard put together to get the most from all your components. For example an I7 with a 5770 card will not run games as well as one of the dual core I mentioned running any better card and even a 5850 will not be held back by a dual care (maybe very slightly).
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2010 3:26:38 PM

ksampanna said:
Thirdly, even you called me an idiot. So does that mean you're "Harass, threaten, embarrass or insult"ing me, & I should report you ? :lol: 

N try not to be a cry baby next time.


Userremoved said:
But I did not call you an idiot I was joking and since you dont believe me go ask other members and go look at the benchmarks.


Hey guys, relax a little bit, and get back on topic.
May 24, 2010 3:52:29 PM

Yes sorry for that they both have similar performance except the i5 750 performs better than the 955 but 1156 is a dead end and it will be replaced soon. While the AM3 platform is cheaper but offers a better upgrade path and full Sata 3 and USB 3 bandwidth.
May 24, 2010 4:09:56 PM

There's already a few reviews out there show i5-750 beats Phenom II X6 except a few application that really take all 6 cores to full load.
What? Phenom II X4?

i5-750 better performance, value in money, winner.


I don't understand some keep say gimme the upgrade path besttt, 1156 black parade :o 
In fact, I seeing ALOT of people build their new PC with i5-750 than any other processor. Why? Undoubted it's so powerful that will lead you long enough til the quad-cores era dead.

Upgrade path? After years when new platform, new processor kick ass you still using board that maybe usable but limitation?

If i5-750 or Phenom II x4 955 even Phenom II x6 are your option, I highly recommend you pick i5-750.
May 24, 2010 4:39:56 PM

Even tough it will cost him more and the performance is almost equal? But heck it's choice not mine just look at the benchmarks and decide.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2010 5:03:25 PM

If all else being equal, and overall system cost is a factor, then I would lean for the 955.

1) The AM3 socket looks like it is going to have a lot longer legs than the LGA1156. The possibility of a drop-in CPU upgrade is VERY high.

2) Yes, the i5-750 does have some higher benches inside and outside of gaming, but a lot of this can be overcome by the fact that you will save about $100 on the processor/mainboard combo on the 955, and you will be able to then spend $100 more on the GPU, thus making the 955 system perform considerably better at games that are GPU bound. On top of that, you get all the latest bells and whistles on an 890FX mainboard. 955 performance outside of games...so you have to wait a few more seconds to encode the video before you burn the DVD...life is tough. In most real-world applications, you wouldn't even notice the difference.

When it all comes down to it, it is a wash, mostly. The AMD system costs a little less, and the Intel system performs a little faster, but the difference really is negligible and it all come s down to personal preference. Personally, I would weigh in on the side of the 955 just because GPU > CPU for a game system, but I would say either system is a good for a build, just you have to decide if your budget is good for one or the other.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2010 5:21:13 PM

+1 Phenom II 965/955

The i5-750 is the better gamer (especially if you OC). You just need the strong GPUs to show it.

Since the OP is only going to use a 5770 the Phenom II would perform very similar in most games, making the cheaper Phenom II (955/965) the better option/performance 'for the money'.

Drop the saved cash into GPU and be set.
May 24, 2010 5:48:54 PM

Raidur said:
The i5-750 is the better gamer (especially if you OC). You just need the strong GPUs to show it.


You keep attempting to propagate that myth. It's like a mantra with you guys... if you repeat it often enough it might come true.

a b à CPUs
May 24, 2010 6:11:42 PM

Keith, its common knowledge around here that i5 out-performs Phenom II x4.

If you want to call it a myth you'll have to convince 95% of the forum.

Not only the arguments we've held, but low resolutions, synthetics, and non-gaming marks/real world apps back this, in countless reviews.

And if by myth you mean that Phenom II will bottleneck before i5. This is also common knowledge and should be common sense. Usually a CPU with a higher IPC tends to do better in gaming.
May 24, 2010 6:18:08 PM

True that the Phenom II X4 was made to compete with the Core2Quad line and not the iX line.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2010 6:28:49 PM

Userremoved said:
Quote:
The i5-750 is the better gamer (especially if you OC). You just need the strong GPUs to show it.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=109
But what about these benchmarks do you mean it has better OC headroom?

In those benches I see 27 wins for i5 and 1 win for the Phenom II.

I do mean it has more OC headroom.

If you are talking about the 2 games that bench virtually the same, you should compare the i7 975 to the i5-750 on those same games.

You will notice in those two games the results are again similar. Is the i5 also even with the i7 975? Of course not.

These CPUs are all simply overkill for gaming, especially with the GPUs used in most reviews.

In the 2 reviews I've seen with GPUs actually strong enough to harper these monster CPUs (5870 crossfire) the i5 takes a significant lead, especially clock 4 clock.

Is a Phenom II a slouch? Hell no. Notice I still voted it due to it being the best price/performer if you're on low-midhigh range GPU.
May 24, 2010 6:40:30 PM

Ok thanks for that explanation.
May 24, 2010 9:42:58 PM

Let's review your post line by line.

Quote:
Not only the arguments we've held

The "argument" we had recently was about Crossfire bottlenecking. The PhenomII scaling is almost identical to the Intel chips. Either no bottlenecking is occuring OR it is happening equally on both the Intel and AMD chips. Which means that neither brand is better or worse for Crossfire purposes. Anybody that claims that there is bottleneck on one but not the other is ignoring the available data.

Quote:
but low resolutions

Low resolutions: You are basically correct but that is not relevant at resolutions that people actually use their machines at so this is an unimportant detail only used in forums to attempt to claim "victory" in forum arguments. Which really doesn't mean anything in real use.

Quote:
synthetics

Why is it that when people see their favorite chip lose synthetics they discount them completely but if they win they quote them as if their life depended on them?

Another ridiculous thing often seen is seeing people include memory bandwidth and latency benchmarks when they create a sum of "wins" and "losses" from a comparative review. This is only important for people that sit at their desk all day and run Everest memory benchmarks all day long. They want to save time.

Quote:
non-gaming marks/real world apps back this, in countless reviews

Non-gaming and real world benchmarks do not reflect what you are attempting to claim. I know you keep pretending they do, but that doesn't make it reality.

Quote:
This is also common knowledge and should be common sense. Usually a CPU with a higher IPC tends to do better in gaming.

Your common sense is not validated by the available data. And we all know that Intel fans have to rely on the IPC argument because that is the ONLY thing they have now to claim "victory" in benchmark comparisons. But other factors such as price and overall results are more important to most people that are not really interested in artificial forum arguments.


SUMMARY: Your continual claim that the i5 is a better chip for gaming is not supported by the available data. This has been pointed out to you many times but you seem to want to ignore the actual data available.
May 24, 2010 9:52:52 PM

Stop fanboy-ing both of you they have similar gaming performance PERIOD.
a b à CPUs
May 24, 2010 9:56:24 PM

Just want to add, that AMD m/b's are coming with more bells+whistles and the 890 FX boards are in the 170+ range. This is good for the o/c enthusiasts, but it makes the comparable rigs closer in price.
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2010 9:29:48 PM

Quote:
Not only the arguments we've held
The "argument" we had recently was about Crossfire bottlenecking. The PhenomII scaling is almost identical to the Intel chips. Either no bottlenecking is occuring OR it is happening equally on both the Intel and AMD chips. Which means that neither brand is better or worse for Crossfire purposes. Anybody that claims that there is bottleneck on one but not the other is ignoring the available data.


My "argument" had nothing to do with crossfire and everything to do with bottlenecking. I proved to you the scaling was NOT the same (in 80% of the games in the test), which showed bottlenecking. Stop ignoring this.

Quote:
but low resolutions
Low resolutions: You are basically correct but that is not relevant at resolutions that people actually use their machines at so this is an unimportant detail only used in forums to attempt to claim "victory" in forum arguments. Which really doesn't mean anything in real use.


The only thing low resolutions does is release the GPU bottleneck without using stronger GPUs. I understand that low resolutions is not enough info to declare a winner, I was just adding in that to show the advantage in the calculations the game used.

Quote:
synthetics
Why is it that when people see their favorite chip lose synthetics they discount them completely but if they win they quote them as if their life depended on them?


Good question. I added that in is a side advantage, not a main advantage. You're the one making a big deal about the synthetics. Synthetics mean nothing to me because they don't exactly reflect real-world performance. They do however show a CPUs IPC in certain calculations, which was my point.

Quote:
Another ridiculous thing often seen is seeing people include memory bandwidth and latency benchmarks when they create a sum of "wins" and "losses" from a comparative review. This is only important for people that sit at their desk all day and run Everest memory benchmarks all day long. They want to save time.


I was just counting up the benchmarks. I also don't consider memory bandwidth/latency to be a decider when choosing a CPU. They were on the list of benches so I left them in.

Quote:
non-gaming marks/real world apps back this, in countless reviews
Non-gaming and real world benchmarks do not reflect what you are attempting to claim. I know you keep pretending they do, but that doesn't make it reality.


I have shown you 2 legionhardware reviews that back this claim. As well as the anandtech bench. Here is another one from Tomshardware backing my claim.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-875k-core-i...

I understand this isn't i5, but as you should know, i5 and i7 perform identical in gaming. Most other apps point to the i5-750 (and almost all apps when the CPUs are clock4clock) over deneb, this is obvious.

Can you keep denying this?

Quote:
This is also common knowledge and should be common sense. Usually a CPU with a higher IPC tends to do better in gaming.
Your common sense is not validated by the available data. And we all know that Intel fans have to rely on the IPC argument because that is the ONLY thing they have now to claim "victory" in benchmark comparisons. But other factors such as price and overall results are more important to most people that are not really interested in artificial forum arguments.


The ONLY thing AMD users have is results from GPU bottlenecked reviews. Show me a non-GPU bottlenecked gaming review with Phenom II X4 leading or even matching. Please.

Quote:
SUMMARY: Your continual claim that the i5 is a better chip for gaming is not supported by the available data. This has been pointed out to you many times but you seem to want to ignore the actual data available.


I have pointed the data to you MANY times. And you STILL try to say this.

Is it really this hard for you to believe that Phenom II loses to Lynnfield? Have you even looked at the data I've shown in the past?

I started a thread once and was told by countless of members that the i5-750's superiority over Phenom II x4 was common knowledge, and still you continue to push that it isn't. Are you the smarter than all of us? It's starting to seem you are being blinded by your love for AMD. I love AMD too, but I don't let it hurt my judgment.

Show me your data of Phenom II and the i5-750 being equal in a non-gpu bottlenecked situation. And don't tell me that any game will be GPU bottlenecked by both CPUs in real world settings, because as we can see that doesn't work in Crysis @ 1920x1080, even with 4xAA. The i5-750 will usually come ahead, even with its stock clock handicap.
May 29, 2010 10:32:45 PM

Raidur said:
Since when is ~20% similar?

With a single 5850 they are similar.


You just agreed with what I said.
May 29, 2010 10:37:13 PM

Quote:
No duh it is faster - its new architecture.... Why are you guys such dickheads? Imagine how embarrassing it would be for Intel if their new chips WEREN'T as fast as AMDs old ones. Please... Save the rhetorical bs for another thread.

EDIT:

Oh and btw... im 100% positive 100% of you will not notice the difference between an AMD or Intel on ANYTHING if you were given random samples. That is saying something.

THANK YOU! Sums it up 1FPS docent do much of a difference.
BTW: If you are going to tell me that there is like a 10FPS difference I know but that's with a 5780 not a 5770.
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2010 10:57:24 PM

Yeah, with a 5770 and even a 5870, the difference will be next to nothing. I thought you meant performance in general, not with a single 5770. So yes, I totally agree. :) 

Also, now that I look closer the difference in crysis (with a 5970) is closer to 40%. Quite a difference for a usually fair game. And by fair I mean a game that usually doesn't tend to lean one way or another when IPC is similar.
!