Well, I'll start off by apologizing to AMD and our readers for some of the conclusions I drew from the Cyberpower Gamer Dragon review.
I deserve a good measure of blame for rationalizing the difference that we saw when comparing a machine with Radeon HD 4890s against a machine with GeForce GTX 260s. While I had considered this when I was benchmarking, I had also convinced myself that the power of the Radeon HD 4890s would compensate for any game engine preferences. I was also mistaken about the dramatic extent that Crysis favored the GeForce GTX 260 over the Radeon HD 4890. This represents one quarter of the games in in our condensed gaming benchmark suite used in the SBM series, and I will definitely push to have the benchmark suite revised to better handle this disparity.
It also appears that our overclocked Cyberpower Gamer Dragon sample was not performing as well as it should have been, with our Phenom II test system routinely outperforming it at stock speeds. It was odd that the synthetic CPU benchmarks demonstrated that the processor was working as expected, but the synthetic memory benchmark showed an anomalously low result for the Gamer Dragon. While it's true that our Phenom II test system had the advantage of slightly faster RAM and the 790FX chipset with its dual PCIe x16 slots, the game performance results were notably below what our Phenom II system demonstrated.
In any case, I am more than happy to revise my previous conclusion and say that a Phenom II can make a fine gaming rig at the same price as a Core i7 system. The money saved by choosing the Phenom II setup instead of a Core i7 system can be applied to the graphics subsystem, helping the Phenom II stay competitive in gaming environments. Across all of the games and all of the resolutions we tested, the Phenom II system delivered frame rates just as playable as the Core i7 system.
However, at the end of the day, I'd go with the Core i7 system if someone were to hand me enough money for one of these builds. Why? Primarily because I do a lot more than game on my PC. AMD's got game, for sure, but if I have to make a choice between gaming and everything including gaming, I find it difficult to rationalize going with the Phenom II. In all of the game benchmarks we took, the Core i7 rarely lost by a notable margin, but there were quite a few instances where it pulled ahead, especially when overclocked. On the other hand, in our application testing as demonstrated in previous articles, the Core i7 leads the Phenom II by a more substantial margin. And there are secondary factors as well. Note that our Core i7 overclock was conservative compared to the Phenom II overclock, giving us more potential with which to play. Also, the Core i7 offers the flexibility to use both Nvidia and AMD GPUs in multi-card configurations, wheres AMD CPUs are either limited to Radeons in CrossFire for multi-card setups or GeForces in SLI if you go with an Nvidia chipset--but never both.
Does this mean we recommend staying away from AMD CPUs? Not at all. But AMD's offerings shine below the Core i7's price segment, especially when budgetary constraints mean that buying a Core i7 requires sacrificing a balanced graphics card. We can build a killer Phenom II system for hundreds of dollars less than a Core i7 if we go with an AM2+/DDR2 Phenom II or the Phenom II X3. Also, even more money can be saved if you're willing to settle for a motherboard with one of AMD's more value-oriented chipsets. If this kind of low-cost system is overclocked, we should see gaming results very similar to the ones we saw in our Phenom II X4 955 tests today.
This is where the AMD option makes the most sense: not by going toe-to-toe against the Core i7 at higher prices, but by offering similar gaming utility at a much lower cost. This is also where AMD pulls a rabbit out of its hat, by serving up an alternative for budget gamers who want to build a cost-effective gaming rig.
- Introduction: A Little Background
- Phenom II Versus Core i7-920: Competing System Cost Analysis
- Test Systems And Benchmark Setup
- Synthetic Benchmarks
- Game Benchmarks: Crysis
- Game Benchmarks: Far Cry 2
- Game Benchmarks: World In Conflict
- Game Benchmarks: Stalker Clear Sky
- Game Benchmarks: Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.
- Game Benchmarks: Fallout 3
- Game Benchmarks: Left 4 Dead
- Game Benchmarks: Prototype
- Conclusion
Umm have you taken any time to read any Tom's articles? This is their bread and butter, the reason the site exists. People read these articles because they want to know what to do with their money, the THG authors know what they are doing. The reason for these articles is to show performance differences, and this article does that very well.
I grew tired of defending your findings in the forums, and I was looking forwards to this, and its paid off.
Great read, and Toms should be thankful for having you
Adding in nvidia cards would be interesting to see, yes, but then we're moving more into engine optimizations and such, and things get less exact. Maybe the effect of software preferences on hardware architecture can be a future writeup? Nice article, here, though.
As I expected on the numbers, but I now want to see if the 790X chipset is to blame, or the Gigabyte board itself, or perhaps the memory controller onboard the CPU is to blame?
Did you read the conclusion at all? AMD lost by the numbers. That's not pro-intel, it's pro-logic. It's pro-science. That's the way the world works.
Wow. You take things way too seriously.
Ahslan .... buy your own pc ...not your daddy
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.209473
I still love AMD, though. I don't need the extra muscle that Intel gives. I'm happy with what AMD's processors give me, in terms of gaming.
I love supporting the underdog! I just can't help it. =] Intel might make great processors, but I just don't like their arrogance. That's why I support AMD. =]
you realize that with this kind of articles you play with peoples money?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130227 mobo= 169
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220378 ram = 85
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121291 4870 1gb times 2 =320 total =1083
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.209473 phenom 2 940+mobo =204
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227289 ram =65
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102809 4850x2 times two = 420
total=919 so thats the truth but if you want you could switch out the graphics for two gtx 285 or a 4870x2 or a gtx295 its up to you.
VERY MANY people buying I7 only pair it with one graphics card and save money everywhere in the system to be able to buy the I7 (talking about gaming systems).
Of course if you put in 2 great Gpu's, you need a very strong Cpu to handle them. Most people throw the I7 at 1 4890.
It would be very intresting to compare a PhenomII x3 720 system with Two 4890's to an I7 build with only one. (same price or amd even cheaper^^)
You compare the most expensive and not much overclockable 955 to the cheapest I7 with most overclocking headroom. Why don't you compare it to the cheaper PhenomII which also reach the 3.6 Ghz the 955 reached? Maybe even the x4 810.
After that Article I agree that If you have the money for two 4890 and still can afford an I7 it's the best choise.
But what if you dont have the money for an I7 and Two high end cards? Whats if you have to make compromises in you I7 build just for the sake of having an I7?
I think that's were the Phenom II shows its strength.
You Take the I7 best price/perfomance point and give the same budget to an Amd system. It's clear that Amd can't compete that well. It seems that you first build the I7 system you think is best and then take the money to build an Phenom II system.
Please try it the other way round once! Build a Phenom II gaming system (720/810/940 with two graphics)and THEN take the money you used and build an I7 system (maybe sacrificing the second card? or just Xfiring two lower end cards? I don't know where but you then will have to save some money)
Most benchmarks show that the X3 720 overclocked shows performance numbers on par with the 955 (oc) so why spend all the money for the 955?
Umm have you taken any time to read any Tom's articles? This is their bread and butter, the reason the site exists. People read these articles because they want to know what to do with their money, the THG authors know what they are doing. The reason for these articles is to show performance differences, and this article does that very well.
WOW thats rude.
They made a great article comparing two cpus. Its good to know which one performs better in gaming.
Again the article was very helpful good work
i read at least 10 reviews from different sites before a buy something ..and for me is more important the opinion of end user, about a product ....if 1000 people says the p2 x3 is great in games with similar performance with a 250 $ intel i will buy p2x3 and tom articles has no value for me because they are 5 people and they don't use a cpu like an end user ... they use a cpu just for rating and i spent my own money not their money ......open your eyes