AMD Phenom II 955 Benchmarks - Page 2 - CPUs

Last message on previous page:
Well, most of them did say the video thing was better, but how often was the usage? And maybe the scratched something and missed it anyhow? heheh

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

Take the best P1, use a 3xxx series gpu, and youll see 40%, whether its gpu or cpu oriented. Thats using a 4870 with this cpu, or a 955. Not every app, but alot, or spot on. No lies, no deceit, but spot on.
Just going on the gpu usage, thats conservative. Read it into context, and how it was displayed, as this is how the comparison was made. If people werent sharp enough to discern their presentation, ignorance is no excuse.
Im not putting you in that category, I just think you need to actually look at the differences P2 and the 4xxx series brings as a whole over the previous gen. This isnt Intel, they also have gpus.
Yes, I do care about IGPs, as a seeding effect for PC gaming. Its why Im disappointed with the rumored 8 series coming, and its old IGP usage. Im thinking theyll add the 4xxx series IGP later on at 40nm, which will completely dominate anything out there, and yes, itll be at least 40% better than the current one

Wait a minute - I'll have to go hunt up the EweToob video (maybe Enigma can help me out here - he probably has them catalogued ) but I'm pretty sure the CTO was referring to 40% better than Core2, not K8 - IIRC he used the phrase "our competition" and that obviously would be Intel, not their prior-gen product.

And we all know that 40% better turned out to be a 20% deficit..

Reply to fazers_on_stun

ubernoob wrote :

I've always been a firm believer that Intel chips are better, faster, run cooler, etc. But I've always still bought AMD. Let's face it, in the real world, for some of us, price is more important than benchmarks.

The Core i7s are faster, and those of you who have to have the fastest will choose Intel. But that doesn't mean you have to slag off AMD: they're offering perfectly decent chips for those of us in the middle of the market who want some respectable performance without paying through the nose for it.

So I guess my only point is, can't we all just get along?

(and the irony is I'm going to get flamed for that comment, lol)

Well that's a point right there - prices are a moving target, so unless you did a comparison today, I don't see how you can prejudge i7 as "paying through the nose". 2 months ago, maybe.

Most of us can take opposing viewpoints without flaming each other (or should be able to by now ). But if you're saying this topic has been covered in depth and then some already, then I agree. But, that's SOP for the forums - too many people get their jollies flagellating deceased equines

Reply to fazers_on_stun

And a 940 is going for 170$ also, so yes, they are all moving targets, add in a deal for a mobo and ram?

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

As to the 40%, Im refering to the dragon platform, the slides, and the subsequent comments by AMD. Maybe you are too? If not, bring on the links, as we dont need another AMD fiasco fom the top

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

wiak wrote :

@PsychoSaysDie
AMD's HyperTransport that is over 6 years now is ftw
it even beats Intels Brandnew QPI that is only less than half year old..

btw, AMD can easly beat intel i7 if they have had faster transition of manufacuring process

intel has been 1 year ahead of amd when it comes to manufacuring process
65nm > 45nm

it shows that if amd have had 45nm last year, amd would been on top of intel highest end

Phenom II is basicly a phenom with some tweaks, more cache and higher clocks
it shows that AMD CAN make great CPUs, even when intel has its cash up big OEMs asses ;P

New AMD fanpoi in town?

Reply to yomamafor1

Well actually Intel don't have their own chip.Core i7 = Pentium D with the performance of C2Q and Stollen Ideas from AMD Phenom.

Intel HyperThreading?A big joke.If you look at the tests you would see that Core i7 is faster with HT disabled.So it is not needed.And it never will be,because HT is nothing more than a simple joke made to convince the users that Intel has more cores.

the fact is that intel has never done anything by itself.It has always been AMD who put Intel out of it's stupidity and make it what it is now.Why?

Who made the first x64 CPU?Well it is NOT intel.It's AMD.And then intel saw the sucess of x64 technology and jumped to it right away.
Who first integrated the memory controler into the die?Well it's not Intel either,but they stole the idea.
Who made the first CPU with four cores on one die?Intel?Not a chance,again AMD.And what did intel do?well they stole the Idea again.
Also as i recall Phenom I was on the market before Core i7,and even then it had L3 Cache.Which guess what?Intel put into their overrated Core i7.
And guess what also was stollen by Intel.The idea of having a small L1 and L2 Caches and a big shared L3 Cache.

So if it wasn't for AMD intel would have been nothing.Talking about innovations eh?

Core i7 = sux big time.
Also Phenom II main competitor was Core 2 Quad.The simple fact that you are putting Core i7 against it means that Phenom II is bigger success than it was intended.Which is great for AMD and not so great for Intel.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Anonymous

But will either of them play Crysis without a gfx card?

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

Crysis will never be playable due to shitty coding.

Reply to The Third Level

@The Third Level

I'm playing Crysis on Windows 7 BETA
AMD athlon64 X2 4800+ @ 2.8Ghz
2x2Gb 800Mhz Corsair XMS2
XFX 8800GT 512mb Alpha dog 640mhz

I'm playing it on 1440 x 900
Very High under DirectX
No AA(never seen the difference)
with constant 30fps,which is more than enough.

Also sick intel kiddos you are giving yourself away.When your CPU(core i7) sucks you blame the GPU,that it "isn't" powerful enough.The reallity is that Core i7 is overrated.But yeah let's blame somebody else because it couldn't be that our "great" core i7 isn't that great

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Anonymous

At the end of the day, if either company ever "wins" then we (the consumers) all lose. Healthy competition keeps things moving forward and keeps prices low(ish).

@ fazers: As for the moving targets comment, you raise an excellent point. "Paying through the nose" is certainly a subjective comment, and the prices are always shifting. But it has been my experience that AMD chips tend to be priced lower than their Intel counterparts. How much lower will change from month to month, you're right, but for my needs, the price difference has never been worth it.

Reply to ubernoob

Anonymous wrote :

@The Third Level

I'm playing Crysis on Windows 7 BETA
AMD athlon64 X2 4800+ @ 2.8Ghz
2x2Gb 800Mhz Corsair XMS2
XFX 8800GT 512mb Alpha dog 640mhz

I'm playing it on 1440 x 900
Very High under DirectX
No AA(never seen the difference)
with constant 30fps,which is more than enough.

Also sick intel kiddos you are giving yourself away.When your CPU(core i7) sucks you blame the GPU,that it "isn't" powerful enough.The reallity is that Core i7 is overrated.But yeah let's blame somebody else because it couldn't be that our "great" core i7 isn't that great

Have you looked at the performance of i7 in non gaming tasks?

It utterly flattens the Phenom II (and the Core 2 Quad) in almost all tasks that aren't gaming, and not by a small margin either. In Matlab, my i7 utterly destroys every other CPU I've seen - it's nearly double the speed of a Core 2 Quad at the same clock speed (due to memory latency and bandwidth), and it's quite a bit faster than a Phenom I clock for clock (I don't know anyone with a Phenom II and Matlab that I could compare it to, but I would imagine that they are similar clock for clock). In gaming, there isn't much of a difference right now, but that isn't the reason I bought an i7.

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to cjl

cjl wrote :

In gaming, there isn't much of a difference right now

This is why I bought a Xeon X3370 and keeping my DDR2/motherboard instead of going i7.

------------------------------

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/547515.png

Intel Xeon X3370 @3.6ghz Under Enzotech Extreme-X,EVGA GTX 285 SC, 4GB Mushkin Ascent eVCI @ 1066mhz, Gigabyte P45 UD3P
Reply to spathotan

Anonymous wrote :

Well actually Intel don't have their own chip.Core i7 = Pentium D with the performance of C2Q and Stollen Ideas from AMD Phenom.

Intel HyperThreading?A big joke.If you look at the tests you would see that Core i7 is faster with HT disabled.So it is not needed.And it never will be,because HT is nothing more than a simple joke made to convince the users that Intel has more cores.

the fact is that intel has never done anything by itself.It has always been AMD who put Intel out of it's stupidity and make it what it is now.Why?

Who made the first x64 CPU?Well it is NOT intel.It's AMD.And then intel saw the sucess of x64 technology and jumped to it right away.
Who first integrated the memory controler into the die?Well it's not Intel either,but they stole the idea.
Who made the first CPU with four cores on one die?Intel?Not a chance,again AMD.And what did intel do?well they stole the Idea again.
Also as i recall Phenom I was on the market before Core i7,and even then it had L3 Cache.Which guess what?Intel put into their overrated Core i7.
And guess what also was stollen by Intel.The idea of having a small L1 and L2 Caches and a big shared L3 Cache.

So if it wasn't for AMD intel would have been nothing.Talking about innovations eh?

Core i7 = sux big time.
Also Phenom II main competitor was Core 2 Quad.The simple fact that you are putting Core i7 against it means that Phenom II is bigger success than it was intended.Which is great for AMD and not so great for Intel.

Woot love the newbies.

Lets get started, shall we?

Core i7 is not a Pentium D. A Pentium D was Prescott based (Ceader Mill @ 65nm). Core 2 was Pentium III based (Copper Mine) and Core i7 is a Core 2 with enhancements, a IMC and a super fast CPU interconnect.

And no HT is known to produce more threads. Even states it in the product description. And actually in most multitasking programs that can use more than 2 cores a Core i7 really kicks ass with SMT (thats what its called BTW, HT was in the P4 era) enabled. Especially in server enviroments. And Left 4 Dead works better on it because of VALVes multicore rendering tech in Source. But thats just my reason for wanting a Core i7.

And actually yes, Intel has done plenty by themselves. Did AMD create the basis for all their CPUs, x86? No. That was Intel.

Actually yes Intel did have one of the first 64bit CPUs, well if you are only looking at this market. It was called Itanium. Do your research.

Intel has had and has contemplated a IMC for a while but decided not to go that route until it was actually needed by the hardware. Guess how much of a difference the IMC made for AMD in the desktop market. None. Server is different though.

LMFAO. Its commonly known that after dual core the next step is quad core. Intel planned to have a monolithic die quad core but the problem was they wanted to push out a quad faster. So they created the C2Q which actually kicked ass.

Actually if you look at the first Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, they had a small L1 and L2 cache and a 2MB L3 cache way before Phenom ever existed. The reason why Intels Core 2 had a large L2 was to bypass the need for a IMC until Core i7 was out.

And vice versa. If it wasn't for Intel, AMD wouldn't exist. AMD used to make chips for Intel, can't remember which ones though. And yea if you look at Intels portfolio you will notice they innovate a lot, not only on the CPU but outside it too. AMD doesn't do much outside the CPU but that may change.

And you do know the main reason why C2Q was Phenom IIs main competator, right? Because even the first gen Phenom that was supposed to take on C2Q failed. Currently they have no real competition for Core i7 and thats not a good thing.

And hey, Core i7 may suck in your mind but to those who own it for non gaming purposes it kicks a lot of ass and thats proven in real programs.

Oh and BTW, when a GPU is a bottleneck it means for new gen CPUs. Hell if you take a 7800 and pair it with anything new from AMD or Intel yea the GPU is a bottleneck. And in your system its your CPU since its pretty old.

But then again your probably the kind of person who never looks at the game benchmarks that show when a Core i7 gets more than one GPU it scales better than anything out there.

As I said, love the newbies who don't research. Heh. Core i7 a Pentium D...... thats hilarious.

Message quoted 2 times

------------------------------

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/banner/2290513.png

Reply to jimmysmitty

cjl wrote :

Have you looked at the performance of i7 in non gaming tasks?

It utterly flattens the Phenom II (and the Core 2 Quad) in almost all tasks that aren't gaming, and not by a small margin either. In Matlab, my i7 utterly destroys every other CPU I've seen - it's nearly double the speed of a Core 2 Quad at the same clock speed (due to memory latency and bandwidth), and it's quite a bit faster than a Phenom I clock for clock (I don't know anyone with a Phenom II and Matlab that I could compare it to, but I would imagine that they are similar clock for clock). In gaming, there isn't much of a difference right now, but that isn't the reason I bought an i7.

The difference in non gaming task is not that big.For example extracting a big archive on Phenom II takes 2 hours and on Core i7 it takes 1:52 hours.The difference may be notticable to the clock but you wouldn't notice it at all

@jimmysmitty have you ever heard of Metaphores?I never said that Core i7 was based on Pentium D.I just said that because of It's HT It's like a pentium D with the performance of C2Q.But you didn't got that because you were too fast to satisfy your ego.
Second of all Itanium failed miserably and that is the reason nobody sells them today.Third on the server market before the comming of Nahalem architecture AMD tottally kicked Intels' butt.The real world difference is NOT as big as you think.Actually it's slim to none.Ahh here we come to the benchmarks area.The area where intel shines.But that's just it.Intel is all about benchmarks.In real world either CPUs' are more than enough.And btw Crysis is still the best looking game in the market and it's still used to benchmark the top of the line hardware.And if my system is more than enough to play it(which is around 10 times slower than yours),well do you see how your Core i7 lost it's value.Also It's easier to say that Core i7 was bottlenecked by the GPU when the GPU is the best in the world for now and there is no better than it to compare it to.And i'll tell you a secret.When you add a second GPU,the results are better not because of the CPU but because of the doubled power of the GPU.Also there is a tendency that programs and games are going to become more GPU-dependant that CPU in the future,so your Core i7 will lose more of it's value instead of gaining it.But yeah it's easier not to accept the opinion of the others and to judge for something only for it's benchmark performance and not RL perf.As i have already said it's easier to blame the others for your mistakes and unfortunes.When AMD failed with Phenom I who did they blamed - no one instead they focused on releasing Phenom II which is a big success.And who does Intel blames when Phenom II is better then Core i7 in games.Oh they blame the GPU.

Also the Ph II 955 is going to be more powerful that it's showed on the graphics in this thread.Why?Because the results were simulated by OC Ph II 940 to 3.2Ghz and the NB and HTT.And it's not the real CPU.And as we know AM3 CPUs are very similar to AM2+ CPUs but they are not entirely the same.

Message quoted 3 times
Message edited by Anonymous on 04-20-2009 at 11:06:58 AM

Reply to Anonymous

^unless you were watching a 1:50 film to pass the time.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Helloworld_98

Helloworld_98 wrote :

^unless you were watching a 1:50 film to pass the time.

Yes but still you'll have to wait 2 more minutes for Core i7 to finish and 10 minutes for Ph II to finish.And for 10 minutes you can eat something,or go to the bathroom or go to the shop etc.8 minutes is not that big difference that you can't live without it.Also who in these days extracts such a big archive?Most archives are exctracted for about 20 minutes at max,because they are smaller.And when the archive is smaller the difference between Core i7 and Phenom II will be smaller too.That's why i said the RL difference is slim to none.

Reply to Anonymous

If you have an AM2+ mobo and a low end chip the 955 will give you a pretty big boost - particularly if you don't want to overclock a lower end Phenom II part or you have a Phenom I.

A good option if you don't want to spend a fortune and throw out the lot in favour of an i7 system.

About on par with an i7 920 on most things ( a bit slower overall) or about as good as a 9650 Yorky ?? maybe or a Q9550??.

So how does it stack up to on price?
i7 940 $Stupid price (867) AU
Q9650 $494 AU
i7 920 $433 AU
Q9550 $400 AU
PII 955 $
PII 940 $338 AU
PII 920 $300 AU

If they price it well I imagine it will sell well.

For the performance I personally think the Phenom II 940 is excellent value.

------------------------------ http://www.reverbnation.com/ofhoovesandhorn

Reply to REYNOD

it will probably be inbetween $350AUD and $400AUD.

and the phenom 940 isn't really great value because the 1.8ghz HT instead of 2.0ghz really pulls it down a lot and it also means you have to pay for a new cpu, motherboard and ram if you upgrade to am3/+.

Reply to Helloworld_98

Well there will be a good thing about that one The entire Ph II line will become less expensive

Reply to Anonymous

it already has.

but I think people are more interested in how intel responds to the 955's pricing since it may mean i7 price cuts.

Reply to Helloworld_98

If the i7 920 was $300 the show would be all over Rover ...

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ http://www.reverbnation.com/ofhoovesandhorn

Reply to REYNOD

thought you meant USD for a second then.

if i7 mobo's were $150 then intel would have a winner.

Reply to Helloworld_98

Anonymous wrote :

The difference in non gaming task is not that big.For example extracting a big archive on Phenom II takes 2 hours and on Core i7 it takes 1:52 hours.The difference may be notticable to the clock but you wouldn't notice it at all

@jimmysmitty have you ever heard of Metaphores?I never said that Core i7 was based on Pentium D.I just said that because of It's HT It's like a pentium D with the performance of C2Q.But you didn't got that because you were too fast to satisfy your ego.
Second of all Itanium failed miserably and that is the reason nobody sells them today.Third on the server market before the comming of Nahalem architecture AMD tottally kicked Intels' butt.The real world difference is NOT as big as you think.Actually it's slim to none.Ahh here we come to the benchmarks area.The area where intel shines.But that's just it.Intel is all about benchmarks.In real world either CPUs' are more than enough.And btw Crysis is still the best looking game in the market and it's still used to benchmark the top of the line hardware.And if my system is more than enough to play it(which is around 10 times slower than yours),well do you see how your Core i7 lost it's value.Also It's easier to say that Core i7 was bottlenecked by the GPU when the GPU is the best in the world for now and there is no better than it to compare it to.And i'll tell you a secret.When you add a second GPU,the results are better not because of the CPU but because of the doubled power of the GPU.Also there is a tendency that programs and games are going to become more GPU-dependant that CPU in the future,so your Core i7 will lose more of it's value instead of gaining it.But yeah it's easier not to accept the opinion of the others and to judge for something only for it's benchmark performance and not RL perf.As i have already said it's easier to blame the others for your mistakes and unfortunes.When AMD failed with Phenom I who did they blamed - no one instead they focused on releasing Phenom II which is a big success.And who does Intel blames when Phenom II is better then Core i7 in games.Oh they blame the GPU.

Also the Ph II 955 is going to be more powerful that it's showed on the graphics in this thread.Why?Because the results were simulated by OC Ph II 940 to 3.2Ghz and the NB and HTT.And it's not the real CPU.And as we know AM3 CPUs are very similar to AM2+ CPUs but they are not entirely the same.

The difference is dependant but say it takes 1 minute to encode a HD clip of 5 minutes on a Core i7 and 5 on a Phenom II at the same clock speed. If its an hour HD video thats 60 minutes for the Core i7 and 300 minutes for the Phenom II. Just as an example. Thats productivity in some markets. When it comes to regular people and normal games, no the difference is very little.

You didn't say it that way. And no the HT is nothing alike. In fact it is shown that the SMT on Core i7 is actually better and in pretty much every case when it comes to multitasking SMT gives performance gains. HT had some performance loss because of the fact that at the time multithreading was brand new. But it started the way to developers programming for dual cores which is a pretty good thing to me.

Itanium failed on the DT market because of the fact it emulated x86. Other than that in a purely 64bit arena it actually does better than most other 64bit architectures out there. And I was using that as a rebutle as you claimed AMD started 64bit first when in fact there has been 64bit for a while, even before Itanium. And yes Itanium does sell for pure 64bit servers. Its also the reason why Intel released a Itanium that has 2 billion (yes BILLION) transistors based off of their 45nm HK/MG tech. It has its market niche that it does very well in, much like Atom.

It is easy to see that the GPU is a bottleneck. Until the next gen of GPUs (like the RV800 or if nVidia actually makes a new chip instead of rebranding it) the CPU will be faster. Its been like this for a while TBH. Core 2 was faster than a GF7/ATI 1K series but the next gen of GPUs were bottlenecked by the CPU. Then C2Q/Phenom bested them and now a 4K/GF200 series usually keeps up with them. And actually in all of the multicard world normal scaling is about 30% better IF the programmer works the engine so. But what Core i7 itself does, compared to say a C2Q at the same clock speed with the same amount of cards at the same setting , gives a 30% FPS boost there. In fact THG has a test showing that and was pretty interesting to see how well Core i7 brings out multi GPU power. That shows that a single GPU is a bottleneck for a Core i7 and probably a Phenom II as well.

BTW, I don't have a Core i7. I have a older Q6600 which I love. But if I had a choice and the money I would probably get a core i7. Why? Not only in the games I play does it show the best performance (Source based games which rely on the CPU very heavily) but a friend at work go a Core i7 920 and at stock speeds he was able to install Vista in 7 minutes. Compared to his older system with a Q6600 that took 25 minutes. And thats in a single HDD system, non RAID too. The ability to move data faster means faster load times.

As for gaming, actually with the advent of multithreading it will be dependant on both the CPU and the GPU. Take GTAIV for example. It can run on a dual core system. But the engine was designed for a tri core + system. I have seen people with a dual core and a nVidia GTX280 getting crappy FPS when they try to max it out, yet I have a Q6600 and a HD2900Pro 1GB and I can max it out and play it perfectly. Why? Because I have what the game was designed for.

But again, to each their own. if Phenom II showed that kind of performance I would get it instead. But it doesn't for what I want.

As for the Intel blaming, actually in single GPU gaming its pretty even clock per clock. I haven't seen one where the other blows the opposite away, yet. I have seen that only with multi GPUs. Then again who buys more than one GPU? I mean with the 4850X2 at about $300 its not cheap or anything. Well it is really. And seeing as to how people are getting more than one GPU these days due to them being cheap I would say thats a big advantage if the CPU can feed data to two GPUs faster than another.

REYNOD wrote :

If the i7 920 was $300 the show would be all over Rover ...

Well it is cheaper than that here in the states. Then again Australia is pretty tax heavy. Kinda like Canada. only they have mooses and you have kangaroos.

------------------------------

Reply to jimmysmitty

Yeah but it is warmer here ... and we have convicts !!!

Must admit I like Canada ... though ... hmmm ...

Canada ... Canadans

Canadia ... Canadians

Hmmm ... anyone ??

Sheesh ... illiterate French probably the reason for that slip eh?

Too busy cooking and didn't spell check the constitution or something?

heh heh

------------------------------ http://www.reverbnation.com/ofhoovesandhorn

Reply to REYNOD

Helloworld_98 wrote :

No because 'Pentium dual cores', eg the e5200 are Yonah based not Penryn.

Yonah and Penryn are also the name for the general architecture.

Just stop posting and proving to everyone you dont have a clue. :sarcastic:

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to BadTrip

Oh I also forgot, the Phenom II 955 is probably going to perform just as tested since all it really is is a Phenom II 940 @ 3.2GHz. Much like a Core i7 920 and 940 at the same clock speed would perform EXACTALLY THE SAME.

There is absolutely no difference between the arch in a Phenom II 940 and a 955.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------

Reply to jimmysmitty

Saying DDR3 doesnt have any value is saying tri channel doesnt eother, careful there. As for the gpus, yes theyre (cpus) the slowdowns, including i7. In multicard, its simply the faster interconnects in i7, which prevents MS, or does much to prevent it. Just as we saw it close to elimaneted with the 4870x2, we see even more of it being elimanted by i7. Everyone thinks its simply a gpu problem, but no, its also a cpu problem, as they work hand in hand. You used to take the same setup and used a slower multi card setup of 1 type, and youd see MS, but using the same setup, using a faster CF/sli setup, you wouldnt see it, or less of it. Everyone assumes its the gpus only, but its not. While I welcome this advancement, for single cards, theyre (i7) just as much as a slowdown as the rest, the same reason you dont see much improvement on i7 in single card.
Future gen cards will prove this out IMHLO, as I used to hold out hope for i7 being truly faster, but as things have moved along, these things have become clearer, and the cpu, including i7 is falling behind.
Having said that, we will see boosts from DX11 and its MT, having a faster gpu will always help, just like a faster cpu, but the gains were used to seeing coming from cpus, are pretty much gone, and yes, including i7

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

BadTrip wrote :

Just stop posting and proving to everyone you dont have a clue. :sarcastic:

"Although using the Pentium name, the Pentium Dual Core is based on the Core technology"

Core technology, of which a version of, is Yonah.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to Helloworld_98

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

Unfortunately, people get all emo about this subject. Take that out of the equation, and I totally agree with you. Even not taking it out I do. Best position to have

Says the person who gets all emo about Intel asking developers to develop games for IGPs, and think it will destroy the entire PC gaming market. :sarcastic:

Reply to yomamafor1

Now now, theres a difference between important and emotional concerns. Youll get over it.
If it wasnt important, Intel wouldnt be going to devs about it. If it wasnt important, Intel wouldnt be promoting their new IGPs in the way they are. If it wasnt important, Intel wouldnt be seeking 2.5x over their current IGPs, but yea, youre right, Intels the wrong one here, as going by your direction, theyre wasting time and resources

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by JAYDEEJOHN on 04-20-2009 at 07:27:15 PM

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

Now now, theres a difference between important and emotional concerns. Youll get over it.
If it wasnt important, Intel wouldnt be going to devs about it. If it wasnt important, Intel wouldnt be promoting their new IGPs in the way they are. If it wasnt important, Intel wouldnt be seeking 2.5x over their current IGPs, but yea, youre right, Intels the wrong one here, as going by your direction, theyre wasting time and resources

LOL...speaking for yourself?

Its important for gaming industry to push for IGP market adoption. It is NOT important that IGP gaming will take over discrete graphics card gaming. If it were important, don't you think both Nvidia and ATI would jump all over it by now? Or are you saying that you're a visionary, and only you are seeing this as a bad thing?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to yomamafor1

Anonymous wrote :

And btw Crysis is still the best looking game in the market and it's still used to benchmark the top of the line hardware.And if my system is more than enough to play it(which is around 10 times slower than yours),well do you see how your Core i7 lost it's value.

First, learn how to type clearly.

Second, since I don't have time to respond to all of your points right now, I'll respond to this one. Do you not understand my statement? Although I game, I do not own an i7 because of gaming. If I were only gaming, I would own a Phenom II or a Core 2 Quad instead. I own an i7 because of non gaming tasks that I do where the advantage to i7 is not just a couple percent, but is massive. My i7 is nearly double the speed of any other non-i7 system I have compared it to in some of the tasks (especially those that are memory bandwidth limited). This is a significant gain, and shows just how much value the i7 has to people who are doing actual work.

EDIT:

This shows one of the main reasons I have an i7. This is my task manager while I was working on some programs (non-gaming) earlier today:

Message edited by cjl on 04-21-2009 at 12:43:47 AM

Reply to cjl

Anonymous wrote :

The difference in non gaming task is not that big.For example extracting a big archive on Phenom II takes 2 hours and on Core i7 it takes 1:52 hours.The difference may be notticable to the clock but you wouldn't notice it at all

Also the Ph II 955 is going to be more powerful that it's showed on the graphics in this thread.Why?Because the results were simulated by OC Ph II 940 to 3.2Ghz and the NB and HTT.And it's not the real CPU.And as we know AM3 CPUs are very similar to AM2+ CPUs but they are not entirely the same.

The same thing was said about FX-62, which was overclocked from an FX-60 to compare to Core 2 Duo at the time, and lost. Fanboys back then raged on how they used an overclocked parts to substitute a real part.

The FX-62 launched. K8 still lost, and FX-62 performed exactly where it was expected. Just a little history lesson

By the way, are we having an AMD fanboy incursion or something?

Reply to yomamafor1

yo its april 20. when is the thing going to be released?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to colddevil324

jimmysmitty wrote :

Oh I also forgot, the Phenom II 955 is probably going to perform just as tested since all it really is is a Phenom II 940 @ 3.2GHz. Much like a Core i7 920 and 940 at the same clock speed would perform EXACTALLY THE SAME.

There is absolutely no difference between the arch in a Phenom II 940 and a 955.

I think the 955BE has 8Mb of L3 cache, a higher IMC/NB and higher voltage envelop (like AMD qualifies it to 1.5v ??? I don't really know so pay no attention ... )

Please return to all these delightful exchanges

Reply to Wisecracker

Helloworld_98 wrote :

"Although using the Pentium name, the Pentium Dual Core is based on the Core technology"

Core technology, of which a version of, is Yonah.

All of Intel 45nm dual cores are wolfdales. What make one a pentium, is the amount cache, and lacking SSE4. EXACT SAME ARCHITECTURE!!!!

You fail again.

Message edited by BadTrip on 04-20-2009 at 11:40:33 PM

Reply to BadTrip

colddevil324 wrote :

yo its april 20. when is the thing going to be released?

Rumor has it is being pushed to the 23rd.

Reply to sdf

yomamafor1 wrote :

LOL...speaking for yourself?

Its important for gaming industry to push for IGP market adoption. It is NOT important that IGP gaming will take over discrete graphics card gaming. If it were important, don't you think both Nvidia and ATI would jump all over it by now? Or are you saying that you're a visionary, and only you are seeing this as a bad thing?

Take over? Its easy to see you dont see the need for this area, and I'll excuse that, but to go against Intel here? If someone thinks again, in this direction, they simply dont get markets, nothing I can do for you on that one.
Intel is spending time and resources, upgrading their IGP byt 2.5x, and here you are saying that I'm wrong when I said they needed to do this very thing? LOL

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

Take over? Its easy to see you dont see the need for this area, and I'll excuse that, but to go against Intel here? If someone thinks again, in this direction, they simply dont get markets, nothing I can do for you on that one.
Intel is spending time and resources, upgrading their IGP byt 2.5x, and here you are saying that I'm wrong when I said they needed to do this very thing? LOL

And when both Nvidia and AMD released their IGP, which is 2x as powerful as the previous ones, you didn't say anything? When Nvidia put 9400M IGP inside an Atom platform, you didn't say anything? When ATi launched their Neo platform along with an HD3300 IGP, you didn't say anything? A little hypocrisy here?

TBH, I really don't see how you're different from BM, because apparently when both of you made a decision on something, even illogical, you simply cannot let go of it.

Reply to yomamafor1

You know, I dont see how you can tow the Intel line by going against them. Also, if youd read my disappointment with the new 8xx series AMD chipset, you wouldnt have saud what you just said. Better say something to cover your slamming of Intels "needless" direction

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

At the time, no one knew what the new IGP from Intel would be like. Now we know more, and I found out, and am very satisfied, as they too saw the need, unlike you. Not problem. I also expressed my disappointment in AMD holding over their old IGP to their next chipset. Again, if you didnt read that, not my problem. You need to maybe open up a lil, and if I mention Intel, not to automatically see red, again, not my problem

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

You know, I dont see how you can tow the Intel line by going against them. Also, if youd read my disappointment with the new 8xx series AMD chipset, you wouldnt have saud what you just said. Better say something to cover your slamming of Intels "needless" direction

And I don't see how you can employ scare tactics on an announcement that is very trivial. If you haven't noticed, you're probably the only one who's actually outraged about this news. Both GPU manufacturers, Nvidia, and AMD, who is actually going to be physically and / or financially impacted by this event (according to you that is), is mysteriously silent. Similar with those enthusiast community who buys $3000 gaming computer is also silent. Similar with those game developers who is the victim (again, according to you) is also silent.

Only you have a problem with this. Only you are crying and throwing the toys around with this. Only you are making claims such as "PC gaming is dead" with this. No one else. Only you.

If you haven't gotten this, I'm not here to protect Intel. Intel's IGP sucks, and it shouldn't be used by anyone who's serious about gaming. That doesn't change the fact that IGP gaming industry is booming. That doesn't change the fact that everyone, including Intel, wants a slice of the pie. That doesn't change the fact that enthusiasts, like you and me, will still spend hundreds of dollars on discrete graphics card every year. That doesn't change the fact that PC gaming industry as a whole, is declining because of piracy and compatibility issues.

That doesn't change the fact that you, JDJ, is making FUD. Just like BM once did.

Reply to yomamafor1

Only Inel is spending money on their IGPs improvements. Only Intel is going to game devs. Only Intel sees the future and is preparing for it. Yea, right. Theyre all doing it. Like I said, if you cant see it, its not my problem

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

You see, my point was made, exactly, when Intels new IGP is going to be much much better than it was, and that was my concerns, and it was met. Does that bother you?

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

Well actually Intel don't have their own chip.Core i7 = Pentium D with the performance of C2Q and Stollen Ideas from AMD Phenom.

LOL. WHAT?

------------------------------ E8500 @ 3.8 (Normal settings)
E8500 @ 4.5 (Benchmarking settings)
Reply to werxen

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

Only Inel is spending money on their IGPs improvements. Only Intel is going to game devs. Only Intel sees the future and is preparing for it. Yea, right. Theyre all doing it. Like I said, if you cant see it, its not my problem

And you still act as if Intel is the only one who's corrupting the market. See the hypocrisy here?

JAYDEEJOHN wrote :

You see, my point was made, exactly, when Intels new IGP is going to be much much better than it was, and that was my concerns, and it was met. Does that bother you?

No. But Intel is pushing the game devs to develop games for IGP, and pushing Netbook adoption towards the market. Does that bother you?

Reply to yomamafor1

LOL And, it can run Crysis all on its own

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

Until recently, Intel has shown great disdain towards gfx, and shown it in their IGPs, as you alluded to. If they had continued their current viewpoint, with their influence and their crap HW, it would not have been good for gaming overall, dont you think?
But, since they changed their attitudes, and are beefing up their IGPs, Im happy, why arent you? I said they needed to do this, they did, Im happy, and here you are trying to dig up this whole thing like I or Intel doesnt truly see the need in this, but since they have changed, what is your point?

------------------------------ If we lose this freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment, those who had the most to lose, did the least to prevent its happening
Reply to JAYDEEJOHN

I can't speak for him but I think you should have waited for the
information you have now. before spouting off all that nonsence
and showing you clearly didn't know what you were talking about.
The bottom line is you were wrong, and still will not except it JDJ.

Reply to jed

Ok everybody stfu, except for JDJ. Whether or not JDJ made a mistake or not isn't the point he's ususally always on the ball w/ predictions and educated guess's so...shut it.

If your into gaming and tight on money then perhaps phenom II is better for you than an i7, if you do more cpu intensive tasks, then obviously an i7...jeez stop all this bickering about nothing...

The pehenom II will do well b/c there is a larger gaming crowd than there is of ppl who actually need heavy cpu intesive tasks to be completed, as sad as that sounds it's true...for the consumer market anyways...

BTW both "niches" are pretty small compared to the many who could care less what is what and which is which...

Message edited by FrozenGpu on 04-21-2009 at 08:05:46 AM

Reply to FrozenGpu