Cyberpower’s Gamer Dragon: Can AMD Bring The Game?

[Guest]

AMD had no answer to Core2 and continue to have no answer to Corei7...why is this so hard for some of you to grasp?

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]nukemaster[/nom]All in all it should just be a SBM vs Cyberpower article. I do not think there is any clear i7 evidence here.You should take those 4890's and try them in the SBM system (X58 has SLI and XFIRE right?)Then when you redo the tests, you can see how much was i7 and how much was "They Ways Its Meant To Be Played" tax(if any). There should be a larger selection of games used to show ATI and Nvidia friendly ones.[/citation]
It's no secret that two 4890 is faster than 2 260's so clearly the i7 victory boils down to cpu limits - no need to move the cards to confirm this.

As for which games run best on which graphics - that is almost impossible to test. There have been incidents of 'nvidia branded' games running better on some ati cards - but then again running worse on other ati cards, and possibly not running at all on some cards from both brands. The problem is that while it may run well on a g92 with 1gb ddr3 it might not run well on a g92 with 256mb ddr3 - or perhaps it'll run perfect on a 4870 but not on a 4890 because the developer has made some specific improvements and hasn't released a patch to recognize the newer 4890 to be treated like the 4870

 

[chripuck]

[citation][nom]kevin1212[/nom]http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 278-9.htmlToms very own review of the phenom 955, gaming benchmarks... now that is a test with the same gpu, is there a big difference?[/citation]

SLI, SLI, SLI... when will you people get it. If you are going to Xfire or SLI, get an i7, it is FAR superior. If you're going with a single card that superiority is negated and you might as well save some money and buy the X4.

 

[trinix]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]It's no secret that two 4890 is faster than 2 260's so clearly the i7 victory boils down to cpu limits - no need to move the cards to confirm this. As for which games run best on which graphics - that is almost impossible to test. There have been incidents of 'nvidia branded' games running better on some ati cards - but then again running worse on other ati cards, and possibly not running at all on some cards from both brands. The problem is that while it may run well on a g92 with 1gb ddr3 it might not run well on a g92 with 256mb ddr3 - or perhaps it'll run perfect on a 4870 but not on a 4890 because the developer has made some specific improvements and hasn't released a patch to recognize the newer 4890 to be treated like the 4870[/citation]

It's easy to remove this problem. Use the same card. That's how you should test different systems, remove all variables until you have only 1 left or maybe a few.

You can't compare a cpu, when the gpu is different and one system uses a ssd vs raptor and different kinds of memory and stuff like that. Some things you can't prevent to be different. You can't compare a P2 on a x58 board, so you have to accept that there will be 2 different motherboards, but you can get the same videocard. So why test different ones.

If you want to compare complete systems, just say complete system A beats complete system B. We suspect but haven't tested the difference in CPU, because we didn't OC or switch parts around. They love to take shots at AMD/ATI

 

[armistitiu]

It's articles like this one that make me lose my trust in Tom's Hardware.
Comparing home build vs retail PC from Cyberpower is outrageous. One thing: is a big difference in price. Second: Why would you use 790X which has pcie 8x for Crossfire?
I'm not saying Phenom2 is better than i7. i7 beats phenom2 955 in most of the tests. Ok. But how in the world can you compare gaming performance on two systems that are different in so many ways.
Allright. I'm out of here.
Call me fanboy all you want but you've let me down Tom's. Now even Anandtech's tests seem to be fairer.

 

[Pei-chen]

Wow, there are a lot of dumb fanboy comments here that simply defies logic.

Fact is, if I am building a decent gaming system, I'll get an i7 920, cheap mATX, 6GB ram and a single 4890. Fastest for the money is my motto and I don't really care if AMD/NVIDIA royalist thinks I am not supporting competition.

 

[scook9]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point that they are mainly reviewing the system that CyberPower sent them. They are probably bound by contract that they cannot alter that rig. They compared it against the SBM machine to give a reference point.

On the price comparison, it is unfair to the SBM machine to factor in a retail license of vista, an OEM (for nearly half the price) would have been more realistic - these are easy to buy and what CyberPower would have used.

The graphics are not really a problem, it has been shown that pretty much hands down, 2x 4890 will always beat 2x GTX 260 - in any game. So the fact that the i7 did win here, is a testament to its abilities.

And out of curiosity, since the absolute performance is undisputed - Intel has more - are so many people AMD fan boys just because they are poor? I have always erred towards higher performance and therefore have always chosen Intel despite slightly higher prices (up to 20% more sometimes). I go with whoever is better for the price in graphics (given they are much easier to upgrade) and just recently upgraded from 2x 4850 to 2x GTX 275 and haven't regretted it one bit. Nvidia is known for its better cooperation with game developers as well as superior driver support.

I just find it amusing that so many people are still finding things to complain about here and continue to say that Tom's is biased. No matter what they do an article on.

 

[oldscotch]

[citation][nom]kevin1212[/nom]http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 278-9.htmlToms very own review of the phenom 955, gaming benchmarks... now that is a test with the same gpu, is there a big difference?[/citation]

Something doesn't smell right. These 955BE tests on Toms show the PhII and i7 trading blows but the differences are negligible. It's likely the video card was the bottleneck in that case - but I have a hard time believeing theat the 955 would be holding back two 4890s that much in the Cyberpower system.
Hardforum tests demonstrated that when clocked similarly, even the x3 720 and the x4 810 were pretty much keeping pace with the i7 920 - and that was with four 4890s running in crossfire. Yes, the i7 won each test, but not by anything near the margin shown here save for the Flight Simulator X comparison.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTY0NCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA

 

[Guest]

Gaming rig tested with only 4 games Ouch!
Are you sure the 4890s were working in Crossfire and that they were receiving enough power ?
Like always ,Nvidia and Intel are Toms preferences.

 

[origosis]

I'm Confused... I'm probably still waiting for the coffee to kick in...

So.. AMD's CPU is 1/2 the price of the i7? Right?, but they put in more expensive video cards... OK makes sense. Those 4890's when benchmarked on systems with similiar CPU's compared to the 260's can beat them pretty well, not soundly, but they do best them for the most part. Yet in here, in this system... Well I say it is a total FAIL. Same Price... 1/3 to 1/2 the performance... does the Phenom really bottleneck the system THAT badly? That even though the GPU's are more powerful the CPU brings it down to 1/2 performance compared to cards that they can usually beat? I am shocked I did not see this outcome.

 

[oldscotch]

Correction: the hardforum tests were done with two 4870x2s.

 

[AdamB5000]

You guys ever have to deal with Cyberpower's customer support regarding a warranty issue? Oy vey.

 

[Cache]

Next article Tom's should run is a medical one on the mental illness afflicting AMD diehards to admit the truth--even when it stares them in the face. For the record, I'm not an Intel or AMD fan--I simply want the best that I can work with at the time; and AMD's time of being on top has long since passed.

 

[chaohsiangchen]

[citation][nom]origosis[/nom]I'm Confused... I'm probably still waiting for the coffee to kick in... So.. AMD's CPU is 1/2 the price of the i7? Right?, but they put in more expensive video cards... OK makes sense. Those 4890's when benchmarked on systems with similiar CPU's compared to the 260's can beat them pretty well, not soundly, but they do best them for the most part. Yet in here, in this system... Well I say it is a total FAIL. Same Price... 1/3 to 1/2 the performance... does the Phenom really bottleneck the system THAT badly? That even though the GPU's are more powerful the CPU brings it down to 1/2 performance compared to cards that they can usually beat? I am shocked I did not see this outcome.[/citation]

Not really fail to AMD. Compare to Intel offers, there is no high-end AMD offerings at the moment. If ones has that kind of money to build SLI/CF system, s/he would probably have no problem buying Core i7 with a $250 motherboard. None other system can compete with Core i7 with it comes to SLI/CF performance. Phenom II is the delayed answer to Intel's 45nm Core 2 CPUs. They have no answer to Core i7/i5/i3 until 2011.

 

[buzznut]

Well, as an AMD user I am disappointed but then I knew the PII wasn't the performance leader. That's a given, we've all seen articles that show i7 superiority. I think Cyberpower should take a look at anandtech's article about ddr3 latency, CAS 9 is not going to show this system in the best light. Better to equip it with DDR3 1333 CAS 6.

For prefab, its an ok system, but not what I'd choose either.

And for people on a budget and building their own system, AMD still makes alot of sense. As the article points out, even with crysis maxed the cyberpower system has playable frame rates. The bottom line, no the PII does not keep up with the Core i7 920, but then its not priced the same either. But does it compete? Well, yeah against similarly priced products it does compete. But for people who don't care what brand processor they have, AMD can offer a similar experience at a lower price.

As for shutting people up, I am assuming you are referring to people who defend AMD and consider it a viable option. And I don't see where this article shows that a budget SBM with an AMD processor is a bad idea. I'm thinking an X3 720BE, or if that isn't budget enough the PII X2. At any rate, there are those of us who would like to see AMD represented somewhere in the sytem building marathons. And with WIN7 fast approaching, it doesn't make sense to include processors that can't do virtualization, so ya may as well throw those out right now.

I don't think an article about a system sent for review from one manufacturer should be the definitive basis for determining AMD's competitiveness or inclusion or exclusion of AMD products in future SBM builds.

 

[Guest]

pretty nice carrying handles there!

It'd be nicer to see the Phenom2 on factory default settings (non overclocked).
That would do more justice to the power requirement and energy efficiency test!

The results where as I expected, better comparable to a system having a quad Core processor.

 

[programmed4gamin]

[citation][nom]buzznut[/nom]Well, as an AMD user I am disappointed but then I knew the PII wasn't the performance leader. That's a given, we've all seen articles that show i7 superiority. I think Cyberpower should take a look at anandtech's article about ddr3 latency, CAS 9 is not going to show this system in the best light. Better to equip it with DDR3 1333 CAS 6.For prefab, its an ok system, but not what I'd choose either.And for people on a budget and building their own system, AMD still makes alot of sense. As the article points out, even with crysis maxed the cyberpower system has playable frame rates. The bottom line, no the PII does not keep up with the Core i7 920, but then its not priced the same either. But does it compete? Well, yeah against similarly priced products it does compete. But for people who don't care what brand processor they have, AMD can offer a similar experience at a lower price. As for shutting people up, I am assuming you are referring to people who defend AMD and consider it a viable option. And I don't see where this article shows that a budget SBM with an AMD processor is a bad idea. I'm thinking an X3 720BE, or if that isn't budget enough the PII X2. At any rate, there are those of us who would like to see AMD represented somewhere in the sytem building marathons. And with WIN7 fast approaching, it doesn't make sense to include processors that can't do virtualization, so ya may as well throw those out right now. I don't think an article about a system sent for review from one manufacturer should be the definitive basis for determining AMD's competitiveness or inclusion or exclusion of AMD products in future SBM builds.[/citation]

Well said. I concur.

 

[playerone]

Nice artical.

So why no DX9 benchmarks again?

Most of my freind including myself just play FSX (dx9/10, new massive addons like Hong Kong (22fps) and NYC-Manhatten (16fps) will bring any system to its knees.
But since I also make huge photrealistic scenery areas (100-200GB) manipulation of massive hi-rez image in photoshop tax the cpu and memory sub-system and all this has to be rock steady.

Cost of my little 3.9ghz system:$1085

MB Asus M4N82 Tri SLI $169 - Negg
CPU Phenom 940 solid at 3.9 - $189 NEgg only could do 3.78 on old M3A78-em
HS Prolima Megahalems 2x 120mm x 38mm 1100 rpm $85 Frozencpu.com
Mem G.skill 2x 2G pc9600 5-5-5-18 $85 Negg
GPU BFG GTX285 OC $298 Bbuy
PSU Thermaltake 850W $100 Negg
HD WD 1t CB $99 Negg
Case Antec 300 $60 Negg

 

[laptopfreak]

Wow, there are a lot of dumb fanboy comments here that simply defies logic.

Fact is, if I am building a decent gaming system, I'll get an i7 920, cheap mATX, 6GB ram and a single 4890. Fastest for the money is my motto and I don't really care if AMD/NVIDIA royalist thinks I am not supporting competition.

When AMD is not here I would like to see if you can still get the performance that you are now getting from Intel for the same price or not LOLZ.

 

[haskins69]

I'll just say this the i7 offers farther future upgradeablity
and if I'm gonna spend a Grand or better I would want that as much if not more than actual speed[ you could buy faster i7 cpu later] but even the slowest i7 out performs the best AMD........that say's a lot
cyberpower is where I got my rig good people , but I'll build my own next time ,

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The findings were with wider disparity than shown previously on Toms and most everywhere else. There has to be several reasons for this, and using the P2 as the fall guy isnt the best, IMHO.
If other sites, and Toms each find things closer than this bench does, it speaks volumes to Cyber Powers abilities to make a clean system that just performs, more than the cpu alone.
This disparity is somewhat unique, the games chosen werent the best in diversity, and its home built vs system build, where a few have already pointed out , they werent using the wisest components.
In the end, to leave it all on the back of the cpu just isnt a good enough explanation, and CyberPower needs to take more of the reasons towards its perf, and not to be shuttled only onto AMD

 

[kevin1212]

I don't think most peoeple are being fanboys when they support the phenom II series... its the price/performance they offer in gaming. Most other tasks, you will see the core i7's and even the core 2 quads winning in performance, but aren't they more expensive? In gaming however, is there really that big a difference? I suppose in this article, there is, but for the first time, i'll have to say that Toms Hardware isn't the ideal source for this info.

I would love to see a comparison of a Phenom II X3 720 oc vs an i7 920 oc... with the same gpu this time, and with a few more titles. But wait... with that p2 (now going for $120), how about that Gigabyte 790X AM2+ for $110 and 4GB of ram for about $50. Now take that i7 920, with the cheapest possible x58 board ($200), and we all know most people will get 6GB of ram ($100). And look at that price difference... $300. Don't really care what else each system has.. as long as its the same.

Then, compare the performance, price and power consumption, and we would see who wins when it comes to VALUE. Intel/Nvidia have the performance crown, there is no question about that, but AMD/ATI have the value crown, and these days, thats what everyone is looking for.

 

[Guest]

Ad hominem attack of the century... Cyber Power(and boutique builders in general fail), but hey, let's blame AMD instead... I seem to recall that i7 wasn't substantially better for gaming than Core2 (or later Phenom II) when it came out, but hey, that's what selective benchmarks and bad journalism are for. You can only call AMD the bottleneck when running identical systems, there are a million variables(many of them intentional) created this unprecedented spread in the benchmarks, but you're squarely blaming AMD.

 

[superhoss]

[citation][nom]programmed4gamin[/nom]Well said. I concur.[/citation]

I don't concur. Let's not forget that the supposed "cheaper" option is the AMD build. Right? Yet, Tom's i7 build here is actually significantly cheaper.

I think the best conclusion you can draw from all this, after applying a healthy dose of common sense, is that you can spend a little bit more on the i7, less on your graphics subsystem, and STILL get superior performance. In my estimation that's nothing but a sterling recommendation of Intel's offering.

Brand loyalties have nothing to do with this decision.

 

[raptor550]

wow, so many people missed the point of this article.

I appreciate the review.