BEST GAMING CPU NOT PHENOM II

[penryndo]

interesting article

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY0NCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

summary: frame by frame charts, PII consistently at the bottom w/ same vc, goes to show min-max alone doesn't tell all

 

[loneninja]

This isn't anything new, when P2 came out it's original benchmarks showed that C2Q and I7 are slightly faster in most games when at the same clock speed.

 

[penryndo]

not slightly ....noticably

look at the charts that are frame by frame

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF85X2wuZ2lm

 

[xaira]

y didnt they put the 955 in there, y didnt they put the 945, the 905e

funny how the i7 920 at the same clock speed as the x3 720 in "crysis" the holy grail of performance only averaged 3.5 fps more than a cpu that that has 1 less core, 5 less threads and only 95w tdp compared to its 130w oh and a $280 cpu scoring only 3.5 fps over a cpu that costs $119, you intel fanboys really like giving those millionaires and billionaires your money, oh and did i see wrong or did they get the same 6fps min, is $160 worth 3.5 fps you tell me.

y are intel fanboys always so ansy for a fight , ive never seen a thread saying
(is $160 worth 3.5 fps you tell me?)

 

[jennyh]

Intel Core i7 920, Intel Core 2 QX9650, AMD Phenom II X4 810, & AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE

So the i7 and the best core2 beats the mid range phenom X4 and X3 costing half or less. Even then, in NO benchmark does the intel's allow for higher settings.

WOW GOOD JOB INTEL.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Like whats already been said, theres very little difference between todays chips, but some people are stuck on yesterday, and P1' perf, which admittedly wasnt anywhere near Intels in gaming.
Thats changed, and tho they still havnt topped Intel, theyre right there next to em.

What I find funny is, alot of people have never forgiven AMD for the 939 skt thing, and the subsequent let down of 65nm and P1. Id just like to point out, I think its time for all those former Intel fanboys to forgive Intel for P4 heheh

 

[penryndo]

Your missing the point. The value of this article are the REAL-TIME line charts.

FRAME BY FRAME BY FRAME

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF85X2wuZ2lm

PII is on the bottom

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Both Intel solutions reach close to 3Ghz. Both cost much more individually, as well per platform (cpu included). Why not use the money saved, if it makes no difference, and use a better gfx card, like most people would do?

 

[jennyh]

Your missing the point. The value of this article are the REAL-TIME line charts.

FRAME BY FRAME BY FRAME

PII is on the bottom

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF83X2wuZ2lm

Take the only tri-core out of that (the green line) and what does it look like? Yeah it's a lot closer now isn't it? Also, note the 9650 scoring the lowest fps on that particular chart.

It doesn't matter that they are all clocked to the same clock speed when the AMD's are crippled in other aspects. The 720 lacks a core, the 810 has crippled cache (very important for gaming). And they put 2 of the best intels up for comparison?

What point am I missing here? That faster and more expensive cpu's perform better? I don't think I'm missing that point, what point are you missing?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Sorry, didnt know about the clock speeds, I avoid [H] as much as I can.

 

[jennyh]

The thing here is, having them all at the same clock speed means absolutely nothing.

The x3 lacks a core and that clearly shows in the majority of benchmarks. It also quite clearly shows how quad cores are better for gaming regardless of what you see in benchmarks. I've had plenty of each and I know (and I'm sure anyone who has upgraded from dual to quad knows), quad cores are far better in gaming that dual cores.

I just don't get why they would put the 920 and q9650 up against the 810 and 720. What was that supposed to prove except what we already knew which is more cores and more cache helps a lot in gaming. More clock speed helps a lot too, but at least try and make them consistent while doing a review over various parts.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

In an earlier thread, someone asked to rate the importance of clock vs FSB vs cache. Its hard to pinpoint exactly, as some games apps nneed the cache, while others dont, tho gaing, its a good idea, and I pointed out in that thread, you shouldnt worry about cache on a full cpu, but the lessor lil brothers is when youll see its lack show in perf, not in the full cpus. I thought everyone knew that?

 

[loneninja]

not slightly ....noticably

look at the charts they are frame by frame

And look at the average, a mere 2-3fps average isn't noticable. I also see a number of spots where the Phenom is on top in that frame by frame.

 

[penryndo]

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF83X2wuZ2lm

Take the only tri-core out of that (the green line) and what does it look like? Yeah it's a lot closer now isn't it? Also, note the 9650 scoring the lowest fps on that particular chart.

It doesn't matter that they are all clocked to the same clock speed when the AMD's are crippled in other aspects. The 720 lacks a core, the 810 has crippled cache (very important for gaming). And they put 2 of the best intels up for comparison?

What point am I missing here? That faster and more expensive cpu's perform better? I don't think I'm missing that point, what point are you missing?

Try this chart http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF85X2wuZ2lm
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80569Q9550 - Retail $220 FS Easy OC
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041
AMD Phenom II X4 945 Deneb 3.0GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor Model HDX945FBGIBOX - Retail $225 FS
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103675
So we know all the CPUs will all make at least 40FPS. Then we have to ask how often they make at least 40FPS. The line chart, without AA which taxes CPU most, shows the PII to lag most of the time.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

We realize that C2Ds are slightly better, not alot, but look, at least compare the right cpus together, thats the point were trying to make. Use a P2 955 vs this cpu, and itll be close, very close, just like the prices are as well.
[H] comes up with some off the wall crap at times, and even their regular stuff isnt consistant to their own methods, which just opens the doors to their opinions, as opposed to real facts. I dont trust them enough, due to their inconsistancy, or comparing a lower level cpu to a higher level one like in the link youve provided.

I cant remember all their failures, even with their own testing methods, others here Im sure do tho. Go to the gpu section, and ask. Therell be a purple apeish thing that can answer alot of that heheh

 

[penryndo]

And look at the average, a mere 2-3fps average isn't noticable. I also see a number of spots where the Phenom is on top in that frame by frame.

Link? You must be color blind. http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF85X2wuZ2lm

 

[randomizer]

Your missing the point. The value of this article are the REAL-TIME line charts.

FRAME BY FRAME BY FRAME

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF85X2wuZ2lm

PII is on the bottom

Probably the only thing I like about [H] reviews are those graphs. I've said it before: just because the minimum is really low means nothing if it was only there for 2 frames. You need to see the framerate changes across the entire run to get the full picture. [H] have obviously never heard of demo recording otherwise they would have had more consistent L4D results. What they have there is meaningless.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Probably the only thing I like about [H] reviews are those graphs. I've said it before: just because the minimum is really low means nothing if it was only there for 2 frames. You need to see the framerate changes across the entire run to get the full picture. [H] have obviously never heard of demo recording otherwise they would have had more consistent L4D results. What they have there is meaningless.

And the graphs are the only facts, but you also have to be able to read them as well. I like their ideas, but theyve distorted, and politcized them so bad, to me it doesnt matter anymore what they say or find

 

[randomizer]

Yea they need to make the full-sized graphs wider so we can see what's going on more easily. When the framerate jumps up and down all over the place they end up being a picasso.

 

[B-Unit]

Yea they need to make the full-sized graphs wider so we can see what's going on more easily. When the framerate jumps up and down all over the place they end up being a picasso.

Amen to that, all I see is a bunch of lines running over each other. Its impossible to glean any useful info from those graphs.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Makes it easier to talk up or down what you want to doesnt it? I remember someone pointing out how in their graphs, an ATI card was bottoming out, and an nVidia fanboi was proclaiming how bad ATI was, and just look at those graphs.
Ape came along and explained to said fanboy, theres intervals in between, where it shuts down altogether, thus the dips. Woulda been nice of them to explain that, but someone had to ask in their forums, (and was probably kindly expelled heheh) before they admitted it

 

[penryndo]

FPS (frames per second)

681+ seconds on the chart

use the zoom feature of your browser

seems simple to me C2Q White UP, PIIX4 Red DOWN

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Maybe , since its really a lowly i3, they shouldve used a celeron to compare? Whats in a name?

 

[randomizer]

Zoom feature doesn't do anything but make the lines bigger, they still cross over exactly the same, only you can't see the rest of the graph. The graph needs to be redrawn wider, that is the only solution. Height probably won't matter. But [H] won't want to make their dubious conclusions more obvious so nothing is going to change.

 

[penryndo]

Yea real tough call ..