AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE vs. Intel Core 2 Duo E8600

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


Sorry, depends on which game you play.
 
So you get a higher average or maximum framerate on core i7, but you get a higher minimum framerate on phenom II 965? So you could argue that the 965 is better at gaming. But on Crysis i'm sure you get a higher min framerate with i7 920.
 
Here is an excellent topic about that question, although it focuses mostly on Core2: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=216514&page=1

And here are two proofs: http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920.html

and

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3533&p=8

Read the gameplay experience: In our previous testing with the 8.12 drivers, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates in the 23~24fps range on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results or higher on the others. Guess what, we still noticed that problem with the 9.3 drivers. However, the hitch and pausing we encountered previously was mitigated somewhat in our new tests. It was only in intensive ground scenes with numerous units that we really noticed the problem and it was primarily with the Q9550 platform. Both Phenom II systems had extremely stable frame rates along with very fluid game play during the heavy action sequences.

What about the game play experience? As we mentioned earlier, the Intel Q9550 platform had some problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing - not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and online. The i7 platform would behave in the same manner at times, but the game play experience with it has certainly improved with the 9.3 driver set and BIOS upgrades. The problem is very likely driver related in some manner (as the man who helped to start DirectX once put it, "the drivers are always broken"), but nevertheless this continues to be a problem on the two Intel platforms.

We could not discern any differences between the X3 720BE and the X4 940 during game play. Actually, how could we, the frame rates were basically even in all situations. Even the slight gap in minimum frame rate differences between the two processors did not create any problems during our gaming sessions.
 


yes this is true, but If you're going somewhat budget as the OP is (less than 300$ CPU) than if he does or anyone in that matter decide to go 1000$ cpu than they are likely not wanting to pick out 1000 in graphics cards either. If you are building the abosulte "best" system and have no regard to money or praticallity than i say yes, go with the 975.
 
New gen of cards comes out, current high end will drop, 285 for 200 or less, 4890 for 150, so 300 to 400 dollars gets you into a top setup gfx wise, as the new cards will perform to these multi card level singularly, and cost close to the same.
Cpus will have a tough time keeping up with these new cards, and its a good thing the new MT drivers arrived now, or itd be next to impossible for them, and Im talking games where currently 60 fps is maximum fps, not average
 


the 8600 wins some, loses some. the architecture is better IMO. having said this, it will overclock a hell of a lot farther than an AMD quad will, being able to push past 4.2 easily.
Click to expand...

I agree with you as far as the "architecture" goes..... this is obvious.... what I do not agree on is the fact that you say that the 8600 will overclock "a lot" farther than an AMD quad will..... maybe you meant on "AIR"? either way you are wrong ...... anyways just FYI : I am a fanboy, a SUPER fan boy of both Intel and AMD, as well as Nvidia and ATI.... I love em all.... my complaint is the "price to performance" issue that Intel has and thier wacky ways of pricing their chips.....

Once the i5's are mainstream maybe we will be able to see a price drop on current Intel chips, but I doubt you will be getting your moneys worth.....

On a side note: Not everyone "Renders" ..... So in all that quote does not justify the fact that a E8600 is a better performer than an AMD quad...... You can compare an i7 920 vs. a 965be.... But you cannot compare a C2D to an AMD quad......no matter what @ stock/overclocked speeds the C2D will trail the quad....

Try comparing an x2 550 to an E8600.... that would make more sense......

You got a special pair of nuts for calling me a noob.... You can say whatever you want, I have been doing this for over 20 years, I know what I am taking about......
 
Its basically the same old argument from waaaaaaay back, when quads first hit.
The merits of owning a quad are showing up each day, and each day, a dual falls behind.
To me, this is progress, to others its a religion, and taboo at that
 
If someone was going for a e8600, it might be because they want to save money, in that case they should buy a cheaper quad processor. PII is a quite a bit more expensive i think, if you can just handle the price it's worth buying it but if you are only interested in that games and games round the same quality as that game then the e8600 might be a more sensible processor to buy.
 
Who suggested DDR3 on a Core 2 system???????????????????????????????????? Are you hallucinating?


Quad core AMD's are way overpriced.....LOL.....step away from the crack pipe buddy...
Click to expand...


Who suggested DDR3 on a Core 2 system you ask? How about the OP of the you're posting in. " I'm also running DDR3 with each rig, with equal motherboards, and four gigs of memory each." Maybe you should actually read the OP's post before you speak.

And yes THAT AMD quad is overpriced. I said this entire comparison ( The OP's two cpus are the AMD x4 965 and Intel e8600 Since you failed to read his post to start with) are overpriced.

The 965 is $245 on the egg. The 955 is 190. Both are BE cpus with the 1st at 3.4ghz 2nd at 3.2ghz. The x4 945 @ 3.0 ghz is 170 but with a locked multi. $55 for a extra 200MHZ on a BE cpu is overpriced/waste of money.

I was strictly talking about the two cpus the op mentioned. If I did not make that clear enough I apologize. But since you didnt even seem to notice the DDR3 on a core 2 system in the ops 1st post...

And to tkgclimb.

The top binned cpu's from each company always have a price premium/overpriced.

 


Lol it makes some sense saying that AMD phenom IIs are overpriced and i agree with you that the 965 is not worth that much more money than the 955 for just 200 more mhz. But they have to profit, and they are competeing mainly with core 2 quad, but having the i7 920 in mind as well. The PII 965 is competing with the q9650 and with the i7 920 to some extent, but mainly the q9650. The q9650 costs more than the PII 965 and the 965 is slightly better or the same and so the 965 beats the q9650. It has managed to remain cheaper than the i7 920. But also the PIIs are priced like that because they are compatible with AM2 motherboards and so people with AM2 motherboards are persuaded not to upgrade to i7 by buying a PII instead. I think maybe. Maybe the way the current CPUs are priced have a purpouse for being like that.
 
But wait. Do PIIs perform less when they are put onto AM2+ motherboards rather than when they are put onto AM3 motherboards/ they work better with DDR3 ram even at the same frequency? I think Intel have got AMD into a spot where they want them, forcing AMD to reduce the price of their processors, by bringing out a great value processor such as the i7 920. I'm guessing that the gamer would stop at paying over $300 for a processor and so for Nutters who want the absolute best and price does not play a factor they put the price of their best processors very high so they profit greatly.
 
Not really, I have used my 550be and a friends 955be on 3 different mobo's ( 780a / 790XT / 785G ) ......

All I can say is that I get a slightly higher 3dmark06 score when i use DDR3 (1333Mhz) memory, maybe a 5-7% performance gain but nothing that is noticible to the naked eye... DDR3 really shines on the i7 platform, not so much with AMD......
 



So DDR3 really shines on the i7 platform? As opposed to what? Nothing else works with the platform. Therefor it( the ddr3) doesnt shine on the platform. Then you say not so much with the AMD. How in the world do you come to that conlusion? You cant compare the gains with a PII running ddr2 vs ddr3 and a i7. And even if you could run ddr2 on the i7 you would most likely see identical results. ie. ddr1 socket 939 vs ddr2 AM2
 
Your test method makes zero sense. Your conclusion makes zero sense. You are just giving your 2 cents. = See below

I am not flaming the thread. I am helping. I'm helping the op to spend his money wisely. I also point out things that people are stating that are just flat out false. AKA giving my 2 cents.

I am not a troll.

Was it me that brings up extreme overclocking? Was it me that tossed in the if you where thinkin about a i7 it would be a different story(for a gaming rig none the less)/Was it me he said the e8600 cant be a amd quad in anything?/OC records?/ i7's?/i7 extreme edtions?..and so on. No it was not. Look in the mirror.
 
Yes you are a troll, you wanna know why? Your last 3 posts are just flames that do not have anything to do with the subject, all you are doing is arguing over different posts... That is why you are a troll... When someone asks a question, and then someone else responds, there you are arguing over what that person said... That is a TROLL in my book.....

I never asked you to agree with my tests, I am just posting my experiences and conclusions... You are entitled to your own opinion but that does not make your statement a fact.......

Soon you will find out why arguing for no reason makes you irrelevant...

Here is an example :

So DDR3 really shines on the i7 platform? As opposed to what? Nothing else works with the platform. Therefor it( the ddr3) doesnt shine on the platform. Then you say not so much with the AMD. How in the world do you come to that conlusion? You cant compare the gains with a PII running ddr2 vs ddr3 and a i7. And even if you could run ddr2 on the i7 you would most likely see identical results. ie. ddr1 socket 939 vs ddr2 AM2
Click to expand...

did it make you feel better after you posted the above? have you done the same tests as me? how would you know if I am correct or not? do you have proof?

 



Who's the veteran here lol someguy7. He's wise.
 



lol i actually think that's hillarious. I admire your courage, but it's not really the way to enter in posts lol.
 
Here is something I pulled a while back from Maximum PC :

From Maximum PC article DDR2 vs DDR3 (with AM3)

"From media encoding to games, DDR3 had no impact on performance over DDR2. Even in synthetic memory benchmarks that push ram to its limits we didnt see DDR3 make a case for itself. PC mark vantage which stresses application workloads actually saw a slight DECREASE in performance over DDR2. Only in the synthetic gaming test, 3dmark vantage did DDR3 pull ahead by a slight advantage."

 
To someguy 7, I agree with you in saying that the top of the line CPU's for both companies are not linear in the price compared to the rest of the CPU's (for example 50 dollars between amd's 3.2 and 3.4 but only 20 between the 3.0 and 3.2)
but you need to chill out and not freak out if someone's opinion is different then yours.

As for Ovrclkr I applaud you greatly finally someone is brining in hard evidence for their argument. You get an A in rhetoric.

and to jaydeejohn- ......NICE
 
Yes you are a troll, you wanna know why? Your last 3 posts are just flames that do not have anything to do with the subject. Your words. Overclocks to 4.0Ghz easy (unlocked multi), more futureproof... etc......

if we were talkin i7 920 vs the 965 then that would be another story..... So you are a troll in your own definition. Overclocking was not mentioned by the op. Oh wow where did the i7 come in. Stay on subject please. Troll. And your own replies in the thread with Nashafc about the differences between to 965 and 955. wattage and 200mhz. Stay on topic you troll. The op never braught that up.

To your thing about doing the same test as you. Wow. Again these are your words "DDR3 really shines on the i7 platform, not so much with AMD......" That statement is just flat out stupid. Because the first part " DDR3 really shines on the i7 platform" NOT "not so much with AMD" part. Which you then braught up a links backing up. Let me remind you that I never said AMDs benifit from DDR3. My issue is with the first part. Which I explained in my last post. Here you are pulling up reviews with a AM3 cpu with dd3 vs dd2 that state DDR3 doesnt improve peformance. But you say DDR3 shines on the i7. How can you say both of those things and expect to be taking serious. Have I done the same test as you? What are you talking about? The DDR3 vs DDR2 with a AMD3 system? Which your results would mean zero related to a i7. How would I know if you're correct or not? Again what are talking about. Do I have proof you say? Proof of what. All those ?s you asked with my quote make zero sense.

Nashafc- Who is the veteran here? What does that have to do with anything. Somebody could join tonight and school everybody in here. But anyways. Join date : 07/02/2009 for him and Join date : 12/12/2007 for me. So um yeah. As dumb as your statement was it was nulled anyways.

tkgclimb I am not freaking out about different opinions then mine. I am not freaking out at all. He braught in evidence for what arguement? That DDR3 does not give you a performance boost in most things over ddr2? Who was in a arquement about that? Not me or anybody else in this thread.

Look at what happened to werxen in this thread. He pointed out that something OverClkr said was false and gets this in return. "Hey, you want me to buy you a Phenom II? Will you stop posting then? What is it, are you jealous of those who have PII over your outdated dual? You call other people who just post their non biased and honest opinion about the two CPUs fanboys because they don't say your CPU is the best. Really, you need to ease off a little." As werxen said in this post "*sigh* jesus i hate having to own little noobs on toms..." that sums this entire thing up perfectly. You guys are a prime example of EPIC FAIL.

DDR3 shines in a i7 platform while not so much on AMD system=EPIC FAIL

Some more epic fail. " But you cannot compare a C2D to an AMD quad......no matter what @ stock/overclocked speeds the C2D will trail the quad...." = EPIC FAIL followed by "You can say whatever you want, I have been doing this for over 20 years, I know what I am taking about......" Epic Fail.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts/compare,1403.html?prod%5B2608%5D=on&prod%5B2632%5D=on

The dual wins in iTunes 8.1.0.52
Audio Transcoding
(wav to aac)

DivX 6.8.3
Video Transcoding: MPEG-2 to AVI
(Insane Quality)

WinZIP 12 (8252)
Lame 3.98
Audio Encoding: wav to mp3

Adobe Acrobat 9 Professional
PDF Document Creation

There are two or three others that the Intel dual core wins also. So much for that stupid statement "no matter what @ stock/overclocked speeds the C2D will trail the quad..." after werzen even proved it wrong you stated it again. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom