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

[Cryslayer80]

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).

Great choice! By the way, good for you to admit your mistakes as well. Perhaps you are on the brink of coming to civilization after all...

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

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.

Oh Jenny,

Almost all of your posts in this thread were of you trying to figure out WHY the i7 would end up slower than a Phenom II when a GPU bottleneck was present. Now that I relay all the evidence to you.. all of a sudden you no longer care why (because caring why would be you apologizing to me for being rude to me when I was clearly only attempting to spead the evidence).

The results you claim are garbage where the results YOU YOURSELF posted. Once I used YOUR source to refute your arguments.. now they're all of a sudden "Garbage results". Oh the hilarity ensues.

You have used no facts. You have simply used assumptions (your assumptions) rather than consult the evidence. I am the one who has used facts (evidence) and even supplied links to my evidence for your careful consideration (you have supplied nothing but your own assumptions based on your own observations of a graph a.k.a your opinion).

As for a sensible gaming CPU, the difference between a Phenom II and a Core i7 in gaming scenarios is minimal. I would never recommend a Core i7 machine to someone who simply wants to game (doing so would be tantamount to being dishonest). But when you factor-in all of the other tasks we use computers for on a daily basis the picture might change and the recommendation made will need to factor this additional information.

And this is why I made my statement that for CPU Intensive tasks.. a Core i7 is superior in every way over a Phenom II. This statement is indeed factually accurate (as the current issues when gaming stem from a Graphics card bottleneck and a communications conversion process between the PCI Express bus and the QPi link which does not count as being a CPU intensive task).

Peace.

 

[kettu]

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?

That is not true. It should be obvious even to a casual observer that I haven't ignored them. Instead I have pointed out a major problem with them. Go over your links and see what kind of graphics cards were used and how many.

@ 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.

Again not true. This should also be obvious to even casual observers. Benchmarks where there are no graphics bottlenecks point to a fact that i7 is faster. Your statement is only true in the context of a GPU bottleneck.

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.

This rudeness in uncalled for.

 

[Cryslayer80]

"Benchmarks where there are now graphics bottlenecks point to a fact that i7 is faster. Your statement is only true in the context of a GPU bottleneck."


DUDE NOBODY CARES! Nobody cares if he gets 10 measly frames more if he plays on low DAMN IT!!!

 

[jimmysmitty]

"Benchmarks where there are now graphics bottlenecks point to a fact that i7 is faster. Your statement is only true in the context of a GPU bottleneck."


DUDE NOBODY CARES! Nobody cares if he gets 10 measly frames more if he plays on low DAMN IT!!!

Calm down.

And wasn't it just back a bit when Phenom was losing to C2Q but was over 60FPS the arguement was "Its still over 60FPS so its still good" but now its not....

I have no idea. Arguements change so often here its hard to keep up.

FOR LA FORGE!!!

 

[kettu]

"Benchmarks where there are now graphics bottlenecks point to a fact that i7 is faster. Your statement is only true in the context of a GPU bottleneck."


DUDE NOBODY CARES! Nobody cares if he gets 10 measly frames more if he plays on low DAMN IT!!!

Would you call 1680x1050 4xAA low? Or 2560x1600 no AA / 4xAA? At 2560x1600 4xAA all the CPUs are limited by the single hd4870x2 but when you add another card i7 pulls ahead.

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

I have been consistently talking about high resolution/high detail gaming.

 

[Cryslayer80]

I am not taking Tom's benchmarks into account...

 

[kettu]

I am not taking Tom's benchmarks into account...

I see. Well they do contradict your position so it is understandable. Looks like this isn't going anywhere but atleast with ElMoIsEviL's posts any consumer trying to actually make a decision has solid information to base their decisions on. Add to that my and others 'not so technical' contributions, I think the information is out there. All I would like to add is that the evidence really seems to converge to one conclusion especially when you factor in the application benchmarks.

So basically any interested consumer, that allready know what they are going to use their computer for and what their GPU budget is, should be able to decide which CPU is better for their needs.

 

[Cryslayer80]

They do contradict my position, that is for one. The second thing is they are super hyper ultra mega giga extra biased. Besides, there are many sites that post the truth. Neoseeker, Anand's (their benchmarks are mostly true even though their opinion is biased towards Intel), ModReactor and OC'ers Club.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

They do contradict my position, that is for one. The second thing is they are super hyper ultra mega giga extra biased. Besides, there are many sites that post the truth. Neoseeker, Anand's (their benchmarks are mostly true even though their opinion is biased towards Intel), ModReactor and OC'ers Club.

So if evidence contradicts your position then the evidence, no matter how credible, is wrong?

What you're saying here is that your opinion and world view trumps facts.

Err.. ok.

 

[Cryslayer80]

I seek for what I think is true. Since I found evidence that I am right on many sites I am even more confident I am right. But, unlike a band of Intel fanboys on these forums, I do not conceal my bias towards AMD which I have for various reasons.

 

[kettu]

They do contradict my position, that is for one. The second thing is they are super hyper ultra mega giga extra biased. Besides, there are many sites that post the truth. Neoseeker, Anand's (their benchmarks are mostly true even though their opinion is biased towards Intel), ModReactor and OC'ers Club.

What specifically is wrong with tom's benchmarks? Have you checked the evidence that you think supports your position? Specifically what kind of graphics hardware they were using compared to tom's?

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I seek for what I think is true. Since I found evidence that I am right on many sites I am even more confident I am right. But, unlike a band of Intel fanboys on these forums, I do not conceal my bias towards AMD which I have for various reasons.

Please.. share this evidence with us.

You now have an opportunity to post evidence which explains the strange phenomenon we're seeing. We're all waiting on you to provide such evidence.

 

[Cryslayer80]

All right, if you have nothing better to do:

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-4-Performance-Crysis-Warhead.html

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_965_refresh/9.htm

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii_965/10.html

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

All right, if you have nothing better to do:

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-4-Performance-Crysis-Warhead.html

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_965_refresh/9.htm

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii_965/10.html

There's your problem. That's not evidence. Those are observations.

In the scientific field you must first formulate a hypothesis, conduct testing (under strict quality controls), Hypothesis true... write your findings.. Hypothesis wrong, start over.

What you're doing here is presenting "SOME" tests and formulating your own opinion as to what is occurring (which is simply OMG Phenom II is faster). You're ignoring any other tests which do not share this same conclusion.

Basically.. in an attempt to have your hypothesis proven, you're ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Now the fact that this source lacks data in order to derive any sort of meaningful conclusions such as various resolutions and various clock speeds: http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-4-Performance-Crysis-Warhead.html

This source has nothing to do with the topic at hand: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenom2_965_refresh/9.htm

This source uses an nVIDIA graphics card: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii_965/10.html Now why is using an nVIDIA graphics card important when relating to the topic at hand here? Because of this: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3640&p=3

What you have failed to explain is the WHY. Why are we seeing what we're seeing? This is what I've explained. Therefore you ought to read my posts more thoroughly. Particularly this part: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7210000/description.html

Couple that with the Graphics card bottleneck and you can explain almost all the results when it pertains to gaming. Now because you can explain the why by using my hypothesis means that my hypothesis is likely true

That's why it's important to explain the why.

 

[sincreator]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x4-965-be-revision-c3-review-test/18
Strange that these results tell a weird story. In RE5 the phenom II gets squashed, but in the other titles it's pretty close, or AMD wins at the higher resolutions. They do make note of the 5870(s) needing a more powerfull CPU to maximize its potential though in the conclusion.

Here they show the i5 750 beating the PH II 965 pretty easily when both were clocked at 4.0ghz. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-965-c3_7.html#sect0

PS: Cyber romances are lame. (They know who I'm talking about)

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom-ii-x4-965-be-revision-c3-review-test/18
Strange that these results tell a weird story. In RE5 the phenom II gets squashed, but in the other titles it's pretty close, or AMD wins at the higher resolutions. They do make note of the 5870(s) needing a more powerfull CPU to maximize its potential though in the conclusion.

Here they show the i5 750 beating the PH II 965 pretty easily when both were clocked at 4.0ghz. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/phenom-ii-x4-965-c3_7.html#sect0

PS: Cyber romances are lame. (They know who I'm talking about)

Core i5 doesn't use a QPi link.

But Core i5 is limited in CrossfireX performance due to the PCI Express Lanes available in the controller on the CPU die itself.

This again goes to prove my hypothesis regarding the Core i7s use of QPi being incompatible with PCI Express and thus needing this patent to function: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7210000/description.html

The patent requires that there be a middle man (in the X58 IOH) which translates data going from the PCI Express bus to the QPi link and vice versa.

This added middleman is a bottleneck and the translation requires clock cycles (or fraction of cycles) which we see as latency.

This latency would and does reduce the performance of any device which uses the PCI Express bus to communicate with the Core i7 CPU. This explain why when we're limited by GPU performance (a bottleneck) a Phenom II would outperform a Core i7 processor (due to this latency).

That having been said.. in any CPU intensive tasks.. Core i7 takes the cake.

That is my hypothesis.

 

[jennyh]

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii_965/10.html

I7 gets crushed by a 965 BE in Bioshock and Farcry 2. Now I dunno about you, but that Bioshock result doesn't look gpu limited to me.

That's right, the Core i7 920 could not beat the 3.4GHz Phenom II in any of our gaming tests. It could only match it in two games out of five.

There are other factors involved here. It's not a simple case of clockspeed or anything like that, there are other factors involved that lead to i7 failures in a lot of games - we've seen it in plenty of ocassions in the past especially with nvidia cards.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/geforce-gtx-280,review-31510-2.html

The really interesting thing about that old review - which caused a major amount of intel fanboys to get up in arms - is that the Farcry 2 results with the 4870 x2 were seen as being the 'proper' results...even though it was a driver issue holding the phenom II back. Do those results today and you'd have the phenom II ahead on the nvidia hardware and equal on the 4870x2.

 

[jennyh]

ah to hell with this tbh.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Well, I think in 4 more gpu generations, THENS when we'll see the i7 kick butt.
Maybe 5?
The new gen is just like the old gen, the numbers are higher in games on the particular gpus, but, arent that different from 1 gen to the next between the 2 cpus, using both gpu gens.
Whys that?
Oh, wait for the next gen?
As to the using a miniscule res to prove anything, then it becomes a pure benchmark, and not a real world app, doesnt it?
Nope, the i7 at best will only show its max IPC difference, which basically means squat for gaming, as a newer card or cards will give much better perf, or equivilent, especially with better cards, or this gen, not next.

 

[Cryslayer80]

ah to hell with this tbh.

That is what I always end up saying,

 

[jennyh]

Just to point a little thing out about that modreactor review -

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

There are the system setups, and they look to be as fair as can possibly be, down to the same speed memory used. The i7 gets flattened by the 955 BE, really quite badly.

I'm not saying I believe this is a perfect bench, but they sure as hell look more valid than those very strange benchmarks done by legionhardware.

 

[jennyh]

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-4-Performance-Crysis-Warhead.html

We're witnessing something phenomenal. While in modes where one HD 4890 card is used, the results between Core i7 920 and AMD Phenom II 955 BE are identical, but in CrossFire mode with two cards, AMD Phenom II 955 BE dashes out huge increase of performance (45%) compared to i7 920. We ran the test few times, just to be sure, but alas results were consistent.

Sorry but that one just had to be mentioned, given the context of the thread.

 

[kettu]

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii_965/10.html

I7 gets crushed by a 965 BE in Bioshock and Farcry 2. Now I dunno about you, but that Bioshock result doesn't look gpu limited to me.

You just don't seem to be paying attention with what people are telling you. That test is done with a single gtx260... I can't understand how you might even for a second think that those bioshock numbers aren not GPU limited. Considering that overclocking the CPU had no positive effect...

ah to hell with this tbh.

Probably the first thing I agree with you in this thread. In my opinion you're just trolling though...

 

[smithereen]

I think the point he's trying to make is that the Phenom appears to handle a GPU bottleneck better is some cases. I don't think anyone's trying to say that the Phenom's more powerful than the i7.