I7 920 vs Phenom II 965 with an ATI 5870.(Finally!)

[michaelmk86]

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=0

Crysis warhead
i7 downclock to 2.1GHz__1920x1200 39fps
PII overclock to 3.6GHz__1920x1200 36fps

Company of heroes
i7 downclock to 2.4GHz__1920x1200__8xAA 113fps
i7 downclock to 2.1GHz__1920x1200__8xAA 108fps
PII overclock to 3.6GHz__1920x1200__8xAA 107fps

Left 4 dead
i7 downclock to 2.1GHz__1920x1200__8xAA 124fps
PII overclock to 3.6GHz__1920x1200__8xAA 120fps

Unreal Tournament 3
i7 downclock to 2.1GHz__1920x1200__8xAA 135fps
PII overclock to 3.6GHz__1920x1200__8xAA 133fps

World in Confilict
i7 downclock to 2.4GHz__1920x1200__4xAA__16xAF 55fps
i7 downclock to 2.1GHz__1920x1200__4xAA__16xAF 51fps
PII overclock to 3.6GHz__1920x1200__4xAA__16xAF 49fps

Far Cry 2
i7 downclock to 2.1GHz__1920x1200 85fps
PII overclock to 3.6GHz__1920x1200 79fps

As you can see i7 at 2.1GHz beat the PII OC at 3.6GHz. Now imagine the difference if the i7 was OC at 4.2GHz…


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,2360.html
AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (OC 3.7 GHz) with 2 x HD 4890
Intel i7-920 (OC 3.4 GHz) with 2 x HD 4870

HAWX
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 very high 99fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 very high 113fps

World in Conflict
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 very high 63fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 very high 88fps

far cry 2
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 very high 71fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 very high 92fps

Prototype
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 4xAA high 54fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 4xAA high 70fps

Fallout 3
Phenom II 3.7 GHz __ 2x HD 4890 __ 1920x1200 4xAA high 82fps
Intel i7 920 3.4GHz __2x HD 4870 __ 1920x1200 4xAA high 92fps

i7 (with slower graphic cards) shows a solid lead over the Phenom II(with faster graphic cards).

I think that I prove my point that the i7 is faster in games.

 

[kettu]

Yet we aren't seeing it anywhere else, just in Farcry2? And at the same 75fps bottleneck we've seen from two different sites, using the same 3.5ghz i7 and different graphics cards?

How many 'coincidences' does it take before you accept that the i7 is not any better than Phenom II in gaming? And wait, are we now talking about quadfire instead of crossfire? If so, that is almost guaranteed to be driver related again.

I'm just pointing out that it is not the i7 that is the bottleneck there. Evidence clearly shows that. I wasn't specifically talking about dual or quad crossfire. Only about GPU limitations in general.

 

[kettu]

God almighty what is WRONG with you people?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=102&p2=47

The i7 is not better than Phenom II in gaming period. Look at that Left4dead benchmark at the bottom - that goes against everything intel fanboys have been saying about the i7 being better at low res or on cpu bound gaming. You cannot get a game more cpu bound than Left4dead and guess what? The Phenom II 965 BE is faster than the i7 920.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?b=48

There is the entire list with all the new cpu's, and the newer i7's top and the i5 also *just* beats the phenom II 965. But you know what, when the 975 BE is released it will go right to the top because THESE CPU'S ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL IN GAMING.

Only an absolute muppet can not take these very clear facts at face value. Left4dead at lowish res (1680x1050), with NO AA/AF has the Phenom II 965 scoring 6.4 higher fps than an i7 920.

What is the graphics subsystem in those reviews? Is it comparable to HD4870x2 with catalyst 9.8?

Since you seem to hold the evidence from L4D higly, this should convince you:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i5-gaming,review-31673-7.html

 

[jennyh]

I have never seen a more laughable set of benchmarks in all my life than those ones you just linked michaelmk. Those bear absolutely no resemblance to any benchmarks seen anywhere else, not to mention the rather strange results they are getting.

I7 @ 3ghz is the same as an i7 at 3.6ghz in those benches? And you're actually telling me that an i7 @ 2.1ghz only scores 4 fps less than the same i7 @ 3.6ghz?

Are you telling me that a core 2 duo at 2.33ghz runs Fallout 3 at the same fps as a Phenom II @ 3.6ghz? ROFL.

Do yourself, me, and everybody else a favour and never post any benchmarks again. When were they done, april 1st?

 

[jennyh]

Since you seem to hold the evidence from L4D higly, this should convince you:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core-i5-gaming,review-31673-7.html

No I hold anands benchmarks in much higher regard than THG's or those ludicrous legionhardware ones.

 

[kettu]

No I hold anands benchmarks in much higher regard than THG's or those ludicrous legionhardware ones.

What is wrong with this particular THG benchmark?

 

[michaelmk86]

I have never seen a more laughable set of benchmarks in all my life than those ones you just linked michaelmk. Those bear absolutely no resemblance to any benchmarks seen anywhere else, not to mention the rather strange results they are getting.

I7 @ 3ghz is the same as an i7 at 3.6ghz in those benches? And you're actually telling me that an i7 @ 2.1ghz only scores 4 fps less than the same i7 @ 3.6ghz?

Are you telling me that a core 2 duo at 2.33ghz runs Fallout 3 at the same fps as a Phenom II @ 3.6ghz? ROFL.

Do yourself, me, and everybody else a favour and never post any benchmarks again. When were they done, april 1st?

Now what you are not trust benchmarks from tomshardware and legionhardware?

Whose benchmarks are NOT strange. i7 @ 3ghz is the same as an i7 at 3.6ghz in those benches because of the GPU limit with those settings(1920x1200 4xAA or 8xAA).

 

[jennyh]

What is wrong with this particular THG benchmark?

Well for starters the Phenom II result went UP with the resolution going up from 1680x1050 to 2560x1600. A performance increase when upping the resolution? That must be a magic Phenom II I guess?

Sheesh you wonder why I lose patience with some people, this thread is the ultimate proof of why.

 

[jennyh]

Now what you are not trust benchmarks from tomshardware and legionhardware?

Whose benchmarks are NOT strange. i7 @ 3ghz is the same as an i7 at 3.6ghz in those benches because of the GPU limit with those settings(1920x1200 4xAA or 8xAA).

I think there was clearly something *very* wrong with that reviewers Phenom II setup. Try using a bit of logic, if you actually believe a core2 duo at 2.33ghz is just as fast as a Phenom II @ 3.6 you have issues going beyond fanboyism.

 

[kettu]

Well for starters the Phenom II result went UP with the resolution going up from 1680x1050 to 2560x1600. A performance increase when upping the resolution? That must be a magic Phenom II I guess?

Sheesh you wonder why I lose patience with some people, this thread is the ultimate proof of why.

It isn't exactly going up though. It stays the same with 4870x2 but drops significantly with the Nvidia GPU. By the way with that single GPU i7 is faster than pII when the GPU is not a bottleneck. Now there can be no SLI/crossfire driver issues there.

 

[kettu]

Oh and what is noteworthy is that in that THG test i7 and pII are both at stock clocks. Not very flattering for the higher clocked pII when i7 beats and/or matches its performance.

 

[jennyh]

What is noteworthy is that the THG benchmarks are done on 'high' settings while the anandtech ones are done on 'max' settings.

It's another clear cut case of the i7 being made to look better than it really is, by artificially lowering the settings. As soon as the settings are put to something more reasonable, the Phenom II wins.

Not flattering for the Phenom II? A cheaper cpu on a much cheaper platform beating the i7 with it's triple channel memory, HT, turbo and all those fancy bells and whistles?

I know what I'd rather have paid for.

 

[kettu]

What is noteworthy is that the THG benchmarks are done on 'high' settings while the anandtech ones are done on 'max' settings.

It's another clear cut case of the i7 being made to look better than it really is, by artificially lowering the settings. As soon as the settings are put to something more reasonable, the Phenom II wins.

Not flattering for the Phenom II? A cheaper cpu on a much cheaper platform beating the i7 with it's triple channel memory, HT, turbo and all those fancy bells and whistles?

I know what I'd rather have paid for.

Is there a difference between high and max other than nomenclature? You don't think 16x10 high settings and 4xAA is unreasonable do you?

Not flattering from performance point of view. But flattering from the price/performance point of view.

 

[michaelmk86]

I think there was clearly something *very* wrong with that reviewers Phenom II setup. Try using a bit of logic, if you actually believe a core2 duo at 2.33ghz is just as fast as a Phenom II @ 3.6 you have issues going beyond fanboyism.

Those benches show that:
core2 duo E8200 2.3GHz is getting 64fps
PII 2.2GHz is getting 62fps
PII 3.6GHz is getting 64fps
That is happened because of GPU limit with those settings(1920x1200 8xAA,16xAF).

 

[jennyh]

Those benches show that:
core2 duo E8200 2.3GHz is getting 64fps
PII 2.2GHz is getting 62fps
PII 3.6GHz is getting 64fps
That is happened because of GPU limit with those settings(1920x1200 8xAA,16xAF).

You are saying the 64fps for a Phenom II @ 3.6ghz and a core2 duo at 2.3ghz is because the game is gpu limited. That holds up pretty well, until you realise at the same settings a core i7 @ 3.6ghz is getting 80 fps. 16 more fps in a gpu limited game? How is that happening in a gpu limited game? Surely it must be cpu limited? But if that was the case then there would be a difference in the numbers.

It's gpu limited...but not in the case of the i7?


But wait the hilarity continues...

In fact at 2560x1600 there is no difference, and amazingly a Phenom II X4 processor clocked at just 2.20GHz proved to be faster than the Core 2 Duo clocked at 4GHz.

As if that wasn't enough, the Phenom II @ 2.2ghz was equally as fast as the i7 @ 3.2ghz at 2560x1600 resolution. Does that make the Phenom II a far superior cpu? Surely by your logic it must?


You wanna know what was up with those Fallout 3 benchmarks? The reviewer alluded to it.

The original Phenom X4 processors also suffer the same performance limitations at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200, almost as though Vsync was enabled.

This is a well known issue with Fallout 3. Even when you turn off vsync ingame it doesn't always work unless you change the .ini file manually. I know this because I had to do it myself.

 

[jennyh]

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=6

Old and new 965 BE beating the i5 750 in all tested games.

 

[kettu]

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=6

Old and new 965 BE beating the i5 750 in all tested games.

Two things:

1. This discussion has been about phenom II vs i7 not i5. Atleast that's what I have been focusing on.

2. In that test they are using a single HD5850. Meaning that they are most likely bottlenecked by the graphics subsystem. But I for one have consistently been focused on situations where there are no GPU bottlenecks. Please keep that in mind in the future when you post links to reviews.

 

[yomamafor1]

I have never seen a more laughable set of benchmarks in all my life than those ones you just linked michaelmk. Those bear absolutely no resemblance to any benchmarks seen anywhere else, not to mention the rather strange results they are getting.

So since they don't prove your point, you're just going to dismiss them like that?

"Oh I never seen them before, therefore it must not be true!"

I7 @ 3ghz is the same as an i7 at 3.6ghz in those benches? And you're actually telling me that an i7 @ 2.1ghz only scores 4 fps less than the same i7 @ 3.6ghz?

Are you telling me that a core 2 duo at 2.33ghz runs Fallout 3 at the same fps as a Phenom II @ 3.6ghz? ROFL.

Do yourself, me, and everybody else a favour and never post any benchmarks again. When were they done, april 1st?

Its called "GPU bottleneck"

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I wasn't offering you an opinion I was attempting to tell you that way it is.

When I see the following statement:
but in the Release Notes AMD notes massive performance improvements for Crossfire and CrossfireX setups, especially in CPU limited scenes

I interpret it this way:

1) I'm a lot more interested in the facts than your misinformed interpretations tbh.

2) Those same release notes make no mention whatsoever of Grid.

----

The following performance gains are noticed with this release of Catalyst™ 9.8:

Battleforge DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 - performance improves up to 15-50% in CPU limited settings with the largest gains in CrossfireX configurations
Company of Heroes DirectX 10 - performance improves by up to 10-77% in CPU limited settings
Crysis DirectX 10 - Dual CrossfireX performance improves as much as 10% and Quad CrossfireX performance improves as much as 34% in CPU limited settings
Crysis Warhead DirectX 10 - Dual CrossfireX performance improves as much as 7% and Quad CrossfireX performance improves as much as 69% in CPU limitedsettings
Far Cry 2 DirectX 10 - Dual CrossfireX performance improves as much as 50% and Quad CrossfireX performance improves as much as 88% in CPU limited settings
Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. DirectX 10/DirectX 10.1 - Dual CrossfireX performance improves up to 40% in CPU limited settings with Quad CrossfireX performance improving up to 60% in CPU limited settings
UnigineTropics OpenGL - performance improves 5-20%
UnigineTropics DirectX 10 - Quad CrossfireX performance improves 5-20% in CPU limited settings
World in Conflict DirectX 10 - performance improves by 5-10%

----

Once again, Grid was not improved in Catalyst 9.8, probably the result of there being no need to improve a game that runs flawlessly at maximum settings anyway. You cannot use that as justification that the i7 is better in crossfire gaming on the basis of one game that wasn't optimised in catalyst 9.8. My point was that the previous benchmarks used Catalyst 9.6 and that they can safely be ignored in terms of todays experience.

Massive improvements with Crossfire and CrossfireX setups in CPU limited scenes. This tells us that AMD spent some time optimizing CPU code (and I would also think it is safe to assume that they threaded a lot of this code to take advantage of more cores as the FarCry 2 results clearly show when comparing an E6600 with a Q6600).

See, 6 months ago this would have been 'proof' that the i7 was a far superior gaming cpu, but now it's just a driver issue that has been resolved. Is the game now being bottlenecked by the graphics cards on *all* reasonably powerful systems? It looks that way doesn't it?

71 fps on the Q6600
73 fps on the Phenom II 940
74 fps on the i5
75 fps on the i7

So we've hit a gpu bottleneck and that is holding back the i7? That is what you are trying to say isn't it? And with better gpu's we'll see better results right?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=5

Crossfire 5850 equals Crossfire 5870. Far cry 2 is *cpu limited* at 75fps, not gpu. I think that's worth repeating with a quote from anand.

Have you ever wondered about what point Far Cry 2 becomes CPU limited? Well now we know. The 5850 in Crossfire manages to turn in the same score as the 5870 in Crossfire: 75fps. We’re CPU limited even at these high resolutions and settings.

See that number 75fps? Now, we *know* this has to be a gpu bottleneck because we *know* that the 5870 is a superior card to the 5850. We also know by experience that those numbers should be higher than 75fps with two such incredible graphics cards.

Now look at those numbers again

71 fps on the Q6600
73 fps on the Phenom II 940
74 fps on the i5
75 fps on the i7

What's the bottleneck? The bottleneck is the cpu at 75fps and the Phenom II 940 @ 3.0ghz is almost equal to the i7 @ 3.5ghz.

Again, you're not objective in your approach therefore I am attempting to rationalize with you.

You'd do a lot better if you got some facts instead of attempting to interpret or rationalise.

I did post you the facts. Your inability to comprehend them is frustrating. Two things I mentioned. First there is a GPU bottleneck present for the reasons I listed above. Secondly there is latency added to the communications between the PCI Express Bus and the QPi Link. I hypothesize that these two elements together are responsible for the results you're seeing which are:

1. Improved CPU code helps slower CPUs do better but doesn't help Core i7 much which indicates that the Core i7 is already hitting the maximum performance possible with that particular GPU.

2. In the event where both the Core i7 and Phenom II are bottle necked by a GPU (or two or three) you would generally expect them to perform identically but this is not the case. In the event of a GPU bottleneck the added latency on the X58/Corei7 platform which is a result of this tunneling process shows up. In these cases the AMD machine is more likely to pull a few frames ahead of the Intel machine.

It has nothing to do with Caches, Predictors etc. In all of these areas the Core i7 is far superior to the Phenom II. It simply has to do with a communications latency. READ THE PATENT. If you don't understand the patent then don't argue with someone who does.

I can prove to you that it has nothing to do with caching performance: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT102808015436&p=6
And I can also prove to you that it has nothing to do with Branch Predictors: http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT102808015436&p=5

It could have something to do with uops though:

Figure 4 above shows the native uops per x86 instruction retired. For the most part, the data is consistent with our expectations; the K8 uses fewer uops than the Core 2. The Core 2 averages 1.41 uops/instruction, while the K8 typically uses around 1.28.

The change in the number of uops/instruction for the Core 2 running Prey is surprising. At low resolution, the uops/instruction is exactly average, around 1.4, but at high resolution it jumps up 30% to around 1.8, which is unusually high. Intel's uop format generally only accommodates 2 inputs and 1 output, so this generally indicates that Prey tends to favor more complex x86 instructions that likely either use 3 inputs, or have 2 outputs.

Something worth noting is that these graphs were of Core 2 vs. K8. Core i7 is very similar to Core 2 but has a few new tricks (which include QPi, HT and an IMC). The fact that we are not seeing this occur with Core 2 Quad based systems would seem to indicate that it is something that affects Core i7. We know it's not HT (because it's disabled in those tests), we know it's not the IMC (because it performs remarkably well) therefore it leaves us with one possibility (QPi). And thus you have why I brought up the Intel patent (Communications method used to tunnel information from the PCI Express bus to the QPi link and then to the CPU and back).

PS. When improving the CPU code of a driver (making it threaded or optimizing it) it will be optimized for ALL applications making use of the driver (this includes GRID). The reason ATi did not mention any performance increases for GRID is because there aren't any. The new CPU code does not have an effect on that game which means that A. The game is likely already fully threaded or optimized and/or B. The game is not GPU bottlenecked and scales as intended.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I find it funny how fast people dismiss the Core i7 with 2 4870 1GBs beating the Phenom with 2 4890 1GBs.

It has a damn advantage and still the Core i7 setup is able to push the 4870s beyond what the Phenom II can push the 4890s to.

And the legion hardware one is just as funny. The COre i7 gets put to 2.1GHz, a 1.5GHz disadvantage and still shows it has the horsepower to push but then that means someething is wrong with the Phenom setup....

BTW jenny here are the specs:

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=807&p=1

Core i7

Hardware
- Core i7 920 133 x 16 = 2.10GHz (DDR3-1333)**
- Core i7 920 133 x 18 = 2.40GHz (DDR3-1333)**
- Core i7 920 133 x 20 = 2.66GHz (DDR3-1333)
- Core i7 940 133 x 22 = 3.00GHz (DDR3-1333)
- Core i7 965 133 x 24 = 3.20GHz (DDR3-1333)
- Core i7 965 133 x 25 = 3.30GHz (DDR3-1600)*
- Core i7 965 133 x 27 = 3.60GHz (DDR3-1600)*

- x3 Kingston HyperX 2GB PC3-13000 Module(s)


- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)


- ASUS GeForce GTX 295 (1792MB)


- ASUS P6T Deluxe (Intel X58)


Software
- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 (64-bit)
- Intel System Driver 9.1.0.1012
- Nvidia Forceware 181.22 WHQL

Core 2

Hardware
- Core 2 Quad Q9450 333 x 6 = 2.00GHz (DDR3-1333)**
- Core 2 Quad Q9450 333 x 7 = 2.33GHz (DDR3-1333)**
- Core 2 Quad Q9450 333 x 8 = 2.66GHz (DDR3-1333)
- Core 2 Quad Q9650 333 x 9 = 3.00GHz (DDR3-1333)
- Core 2 Quad Q9650 367 x 9 = 3.30GHz (DDR3-1600)*
- Core 2 Quad Q9650 400 x 9 = 3.60GHz (DDR3-1600)*
- Core 2 Quad Q9650 444 x 9 = 4.00GHz (DDR3-1600)*

- x2 Kingston HyperX 2GB PC3-13000 Module(s)


- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)


- ASUS GeForce GTX 295 (1792MB)


- ASUS P5E3 Premium (Intel X48)


Software
- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 (64-bit)
- Intel System Driver 9.1.0.1012
- Nvidia Forceware 181.22 WHQL

Phenom/Phenom II

Hardware
- Phenom II X4 920 200 x 11 = 2.20GHz (DDR2-1066)**
- Phenom II X4 920 200 x 13 = 2.60GHz (DDR2-1066)**
- Phenom II X4 940 200 x 15 = 3.00GHz (DDR2-1066)
- Phenom II X4 940 200 x 16 = 3.20GHz (DDR2-1066)*
- Phenom II X4 940 200 x 16.5 = 3.30GHz (DDR2-1066)*
- Phenom II X4 940 200 x 17 = 3.40GHz (DDR2-1066)*
- Phenom II X4 940 200 x 18 = 3.60GHz (DDR2-1066)*

- x2 Kingston HyperX 2GB PC2-8500 Module(s)


- Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300)


- ASUS GeForce GTX 295 (1792MB)


- ASUS M3A79-T Deluxe (790FX)


Software
- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 (64-bit)
- Nvidia Forceware 181.22 WHQL

Overall the RAM is the same (sans the Core i7 system with 2GB more), same HDDs and same GPU.

The Core i7 system has a Asus P6T X58 mobo which is one of the nice ones but not the best.

The Core 2 system uses a Asus P5E3 Premium which was the best LGA775 system you could get.

Both the Phenom and Phenom II use the same mobo a Asus M3A79-T. It had the SB750, 790FX, 4PCIe lanes. It was a pretty nice mobo to use.

All Asus mobos (some of the best in the world) with all the same components. So whats wrong with the Phenom II system?

 

[jennyh]

And I find it hilarious that every single one of you completely ignore every anand bench, any reason why the phenom II's do a lot better there?

@ Elmo, I couldnt care less *what* the reason is, all that matters is that there *is* a reason why the i7 regularly fails at realistic gaming resolutions.

I also couldn't care less about 1024x768 resolution 'gaming' benchmarks because nobody games at those resolutions with this hardware - yet it is consistently brought up by intel fanboys as 'proof' of the i7's superiority. Are you telling me you'd rather have a cpu that wins at low res, low settings compared to high res, high settings because it sure as hell looks to me like you would.

And then we have benchmarks like on that Fallout 3 bench where the reviewer suspected vysnc was on yet didn't actually bother to check it out properly, and you expect me or anyone else to believe those garbage results?

All I have used is plain facts and logic and you idiots simply refuse to accept it because it goes against everything you've been spoonfed from the start. First it was 'triple channel memory' then 'hyperthreading' then 'crossfire/sli' that was supposed to be the reasons for intels superiority, but every new series of benchmarks fix the issues with Phenom II so now it is the only sensible gaming cpu choice.

 

[Cryslayer80]

I guess you are referring to Tom's CyberPower PC review... Dude, dude dude... Even DIE HARD Intel fanboys dismissed the benchmark as ridiculous (or at least fishy), and even the author apologized writing a *little* less biased review. How hard of a fanboy are you?

 

[Cryslayer80]

And I find it hilarious that every single one of you completely ignore every anand bench, any reason why the phenom II's do a lot better there?

@ Elmo, I couldnt care less *what* the reason is, all that matters is that there *is* a reason why the i7 regularly fails at realistic gaming resolutions.

I also couldn't care less about 1024x768 resolution 'gaming' benchmarks because nobody games at those resolutions with this hardware - yet it is consistently brought up by intel fanboys as 'proof' of the i7's superiority. Are you telling me you'd rather have a cpu that wins at low res, low settings compared to high res, high settings because it sure as hell looks to me like you would.

And then we have benchmarks like on that Fallout 3 bench where the reviewer suspected vysnc was on yet didn't actually bother to check it out properly, and you expect me or anyone else to believe those garbage results?

All I have used is plain facts and logic and you idiots simply refuse to accept it because it goes against everything you've been spoonfed from the start. First it was 'triple channel memory' then 'hyperthreading' then 'crossfire/sli' that was supposed to be the reasons for intels superiority, but every new series of benchmarks fix the issues with Phenom II so now it is the only sensible gaming cpu choice.

 

[jennyh]

@ Jimmy how do you know that the AMD system didn't have software errors? How do you know that it didn't have AA turned on in CCC, or the Catalyst AI set to max, or frankly a whole list of possible issues that a *bad* reviewer simply wouldn't realise.

Are you saying you believe these benchmarks more than anand's?

 

[jimmysmitty]

@ Jimmy how do you know that the AMD system didn't have software errors? How do you know that it didn't have AA turned on in CCC, or the Catalyst AI set to max, or frankly a whole list of possible issues that a *bad* reviewer simply wouldn't realise.

Are you saying you believe these benchmarks more than anand's?

No but considering that I have a HD4870 1GB I can tell you that unless they went in and turned it on, the AA is set to Application settings BY DEFAULT. Its how I run my CCC, which I love. CCC is the most innovative GPU control system ever. Even though the Overdrive isn't as good as others it is nice to have built in with fan control (mines at 71% always still pretty quiet).

The benchmarks are interesting but unless you can see it you have to take them with a grain of salt, even the ones you trust. But you don't seem to trust any of them except if they can prove your point.

My point is simply this: The Phenom II had been out a while. Asus is known for quality mobos and it had even the latest SB750. So unless the Windows install magically only went bad on the Phenom systems there is nothing wrong with it.

Now if they do the same tests I am sure that performance would go up but that still wont change the fact that a Core i7 is able to push a GPU pretty damn far. And a 4890 has a 200MHz advantage average GPU and about 100-200MHz memory.

I trust Anand even though a lot of AMD fans don't, you would be the first who does really. Most AMD fans think Anand is a bunch of paid Intel schills like they think THG is.

Still the THG one might have been biased but still the Core i7 was at a disadvantage.

Meh I wont argue anymore. You are right, I am wrong. AMD For Life and so on and so forth. I shall never buy Intel again even if they show the best performance in everything (considering I do rip DVDs and edit videos for games but meh).