-
AMD deprioritizing flagship gaming GPUs: Jack Huynh talks new strategy against Nvidia in gaming market.
keithlm
Distinguished
- Dec 26, 2007
- 735
- 0
- 18,990
The Phenom II X4 has no problem competing with either the C2Q or the i7 and i5 chips. Fans of the Intel chips will claim otherwise but other than for a few non-graphical (and often rarely used) applications their opinions are not backed by actual benchmark data. But they do really hate it if somebody points that minor fact out.
It is well known that the PhII X4 has no problems scaling with 2x5870 or a single 5970. There are tests that show this to be true and there is no evidence or tests that show otherwise. (Unless you include the one test where the reviewer admitted he had major driver problems; which means that test is non-conclusive.) Basically the i7-920 and the PhenomII 965 perform about the same in most tests when they are clocked at anything above 3.0Ghz. (NOTE: 3.0Ghz would be an overclock for the i7-920 and an underclock for the PhII 965.)
Whether or not synthetic benchmarks are important is debatable. They are often deemed important if they show a definitive "win" and not important if they do not. In the case of graphics cards if you compare the 3DMark Vantage GPU scores in their online database and you can easily compare i7-920 and PhII X4 at the same frequency when comparing the graphics cards. If you look at the 5970 graphics card with CPU chips clocked in the same range you will find that the PhII X4 usually has a higher GPU score than a i7-920 at the same clock speed. But since the i7 has a better CPU score on that test it ends up with an overall higher score and "the win". Some people consider the overall score to be more important than only the GPU score. Which is even more ridiculous in that test when you have people with Physx enabled cards that allow the CPU score to be extremely artificially inflated.
It is well known that the PhII X4 has no problems scaling with 2x5870 or a single 5970. There are tests that show this to be true and there is no evidence or tests that show otherwise. (Unless you include the one test where the reviewer admitted he had major driver problems; which means that test is non-conclusive.) Basically the i7-920 and the PhenomII 965 perform about the same in most tests when they are clocked at anything above 3.0Ghz. (NOTE: 3.0Ghz would be an overclock for the i7-920 and an underclock for the PhII 965.)
Whether or not synthetic benchmarks are important is debatable. They are often deemed important if they show a definitive "win" and not important if they do not. In the case of graphics cards if you compare the 3DMark Vantage GPU scores in their online database and you can easily compare i7-920 and PhII X4 at the same frequency when comparing the graphics cards. If you look at the 5970 graphics card with CPU chips clocked in the same range you will find that the PhII X4 usually has a higher GPU score than a i7-920 at the same clock speed. But since the i7 has a better CPU score on that test it ends up with an overall higher score and "the win". Some people consider the overall score to be more important than only the GPU score. Which is even more ridiculous in that test when you have people with Physx enabled cards that allow the CPU score to be extremely artificially inflated.
Pro Llama
Distinguished
- Dec 8, 2009
- 353
- 0
- 18,810
If you are only gaming on the pc then the PII x4 is the way to go. If you want to do heavy calculations and what not then i7 is the chip for you. I was looking through the i5 vs 965 posts and I can’t seem to find the bench marks for cf with the i7, i5, and 965. The bottom line of the bench marks were that the 965 performed just as well as the i7 and i5 with cf 5870, I believe the difference was < 5 fps.
Do you upgrade your full system when you upgrade or do you normally do it piece by piece? If you normally do a full upgrade each time go with the PII x4. If you do piece by piece you may want to get the i7 because the next gen gpus are less likely to be bottlenecked by the i7, though they may not be bottlenecked by either cpu.
With either chip you will get the same performance in-game right now, and you will be happy with it.
Do you upgrade your full system when you upgrade or do you normally do it piece by piece? If you normally do a full upgrade each time go with the PII x4. If you do piece by piece you may want to get the i7 because the next gen gpus are less likely to be bottlenecked by the i7, though they may not be bottlenecked by either cpu.
With either chip you will get the same performance in-game right now, and you will be happy with it.
mindless728
Splendid
- Jul 15, 2008
- 4,074
- 0
- 22,960
werxen
Distinguished
- Sep 26, 2008
- 1,331
- 0
- 19,310
Psycho.... You and I both know that Far Cry 2 is a game DESIGNED for Intel processors. What is wrong with you? I am ashamed that you would post such a benchmark as an overall fight over P2 vs i7.... That is like me cherry picking benchmarks where the P2 wins (and there ARE benchmarks where the p2 beats the i7) and saying SEE SEE!!! INTEL > AMD LOLZ.
Drop the act psycho you are starting to annoy me with your non-stop Intel fanboyism.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=88&p2=99&c=1
check this out, specifically the gaming benchmarks. Farcry 2 is known to favor intel architectures...i've put the phenom 955 against the i7 975 just to prove a point...cpu doesn't matter as much for gaming, and the 955 will do you well for much less.
keithlm
Distinguished
- Dec 26, 2007
- 735
- 0
- 18,990
Actually benchmarks CAN and DO lie.
When you compare a group of benchmarks results and most of the results are within a few FPS and/or percent but then you have one that has a major difference that is called an "anomaly" and anybody that understands statistics will ignore that anomalous result unless they can explain why such an anomaly exists.
Apparently on forums some people believe that anomalous and misleading results should not be ignored. In fact often some people will go to great lengths to make sure that the result is posted repeatedly in an attempt to make it more acceptable.
If they CAN provide a logical or rational explanation for the anomaly that would be completely different. But that never happens. The least acceptable excuse possible would be to attempt to claim that "benchmarks don't lie." Because if you attempt to pass an anomalous result off as being average or representative behavior then that is a direct lie.
As can be readily seen with this failed attempt at misdirection by the quoted poster. (The only thing more pathetic is when several of the fanboys attempt to justify this type of behavior.)
andy5174
Distinguished
- Mar 3, 2009
- 2,452
- 0
- 19,860
Consider i5-750 or PII-955 which has the best cost-performance ratio and more than enough for any games out there.
Get whichever has the better cost-performance ratio.
FYI, i5-750 has better cost-performance ratio in the U.S., whereas, 955 is better in most countries.
Get whichever has the better cost-performance ratio.
FYI, i5-750 has better cost-performance ratio in the U.S., whereas, 955 is better in most countries.
shubham1401
Distinguished
- Apr 21, 2009
- 2,754
- 0
- 20,960
Pro Llama
Distinguished
- Dec 8, 2009
- 353
- 0
- 18,810
How do you figure? I have a microcenter near me and the cheapest I can get an i5 750 is $180 and on newegg it cost $195. Now a PII 955 cost $160 at both places. That is a $20-$35 difference and that’s not even including the fact that intel motherboards cost more. Now explain how spending well over $20 to get no gain is worth it. If we were talking about something cpu intensive and not gaming then the i5 would be about the same cost/performance ratio hence it would be worth the extra money.
Could we please have one thread where all the bs fan boy stuff doesn’t come out.
what this guy said. i7 is only much better for HIGHLY threaded apps and games don't really count towards this at all. By the time games can really make sure of even an AMD quad core, the Bulldozer will be out and then we'll see some competition between AMD and Intel for best performance.
Raidur
Distinguished
- Nov 27, 2008
- 2,365
- 0
- 19,960
I don't see how this turned into a fight lol. Someone said i7 is faster, then someone said phenom ii is just as fast when using up to a 5970 / 5870 xfire. Someone agreed. Someone then said ohenom ii " matches c2q let alone i5 i7. Then someone went beserk, then someone else does.
Everything said here is true. Why did you go crazy keith and others? C2q matches i5 and i7 up to a 5970 just like phenom ii does. Phenom ii and c2q are nearly equal, i7 and i5 are in a class of their own. Phenom ii / c2q are just 'good enough' for now for gaming but that doesn't technically make them equal to i5/i7.
Jenny i see amd's flagship beating a q9400 and some dual cores. What's your point?
The op asked a simple question, and I know we can all agree the i7 is simply superior to phenom ii. Jesus who cares.
Everything said here is true. Why did you go crazy keith and others? C2q matches i5 and i7 up to a 5970 just like phenom ii does. Phenom ii and c2q are nearly equal, i7 and i5 are in a class of their own. Phenom ii / c2q are just 'good enough' for now for gaming but that doesn't technically make them equal to i5/i7.
Jenny i see amd's flagship beating a q9400 and some dual cores. What's your point?
The op asked a simple question, and I know we can all agree the i7 is simply superior to phenom ii. Jesus who cares.
jennyh
Splendid
- Mar 3, 2009
- 4,292
- 0
- 22,860
Raidur :
Jenny i see amd's flagship beating a q9400 and some dual cores. What's your point?
It's no wonder you cannot see the Phenom II beating the i7 and i5 when your eyes are obviously conditioned to ignoring it when it happens. Look again.
strictly from a gaming standpoint, the i7 would be money wasted. i participated in this money waste already and would discourage it. the only exception would be if you really have some apps that can benefit from the i7 or if you are running multiple high end video cards. it seemed even multiple high end video card performance was marginal at best for me. P2 955 has kept me very happy and delivers a cleaner, better feel to gaming without warming your room 10 degrees in the process.
Pro Llama
Distinguished
- Dec 8, 2009
- 353
- 0
- 18,810
Raidur :
I don't see how this turned into a fight lol. Someone said i7 is faster, then someone said phenom ii is just as fast when using up to a 5970 / 5870 xfire. Someone agreed. Someone then said ohenom ii " matches c2q let alone i5 i7. Then someone went beserk, then someone else does.
Everything said here is true. Why did you go crazy keith and others? C2q matches i5 and i7 up to a 5970 just like phenom ii does. Phenom ii and c2q are nearly equal, i7 and i5 are in a class of their own. Phenom ii / c2q are just 'good enough' for now for gaming but that doesn't technically make them equal to i5/i7.
Jenny i see amd's flagship beating a q9400 and some dual cores. What's your point?
The op asked a simple question, and I know we can all agree the i7 is simply superior to phenom ii. Jesus who cares.
Everything said here is true. Why did you go crazy keith and others? C2q matches i5 and i7 up to a 5970 just like phenom ii does. Phenom ii and c2q are nearly equal, i7 and i5 are in a class of their own. Phenom ii / c2q are just 'good enough' for now for gaming but that doesn't technically make them equal to i5/i7.
Jenny i see amd's flagship beating a q9400 and some dual cores. What's your point?
The op asked a simple question, and I know we can all agree the i7 is simply superior to phenom ii. Jesus who cares.
Obviously it wasn’t that clear of a question to you. The op is talking about building a gaming computer and you are saying that the i7 is superior. As even you said “C2q matches i5 and i7 up to a 5970 just like phenom ii does” hence the i7 is not superior for this application.
The reason why things “go crazy” is because fan boys seem to have a habit of posting bs as often as they can. Honestly you’re not exactly helping either because your facts aren’t strait. You say that the i5 and i7 are in a class of their own. I could support you saying that the i7 is in a class of its own, but the i5 performs about the same as a PII 965 with turbo boost enabled. Here is a good read for you: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272741-28-truth-phenom
keithlm
Distinguished
- Dec 26, 2007
- 735
- 0
- 18,990
The i7 may or may not be a small amount better than the Phenom II. That particular fact can still be debated as has been done in the past. It is definitely not in a class of it's own; although it is clear that many people want to fool others into believing that to be an indisputable truth. But just because some people want to believe that does not make it indisputable.
However the i5 is almost as good as the Phenom II. It is not superior as so many people often attempt to falsely claim on forums. When you add additional blatant incorrect statements about how the Intel chips scale better than the AMD chips with multiple graphics cards then it really starts getting deep.
Statements that are presented as being indisputably true when they have dubious veracity definitely need to be pointed out.
For gaming right now, there really won't be any difference between a PII 955 and an i7-920. In a few CPU-intensive games, such as WoW, you might squeeze a few extra FPS out of the i7 in a couple occasions - but the difference would still be very minimal. This is especially true if you're going with any sort of sane single card or Crossfire/SLI setup. With some higher-end cards or dual-GPU setups, like a 5970 or a GTX 285 SLI or something, then the i7 would bottleneck games less. Either way, both will give you excellent framrates in every game out there at max settings.
In the future (a few years down the line), if you choose to upgrade your video card, I would imagine that an i7 would then hold up better as the bottleneck would likely shift from the GPU to the CPU. But even by then, both processors would look ancient compared to newer technology.
I would really base your decision on your budget. Unless you really have the money to spend, a 955 or an i5-750 would be the way to go. Either one would still be better than what 99% of the PC users out there have, and better than what the vast majority of PC gamers are currently using. If you have a huge budget and won't be sacrificing the video card, then why not get an i7-920 simply for longevity?
Either way...considering it's still possible to run most games at 60+ FPS with a Core 2 Duo or Athlon x2 at decent clock speeds, you can't go wrong with an i5, PII, or i7.
In the future (a few years down the line), if you choose to upgrade your video card, I would imagine that an i7 would then hold up better as the bottleneck would likely shift from the GPU to the CPU. But even by then, both processors would look ancient compared to newer technology.
I would really base your decision on your budget. Unless you really have the money to spend, a 955 or an i5-750 would be the way to go. Either one would still be better than what 99% of the PC users out there have, and better than what the vast majority of PC gamers are currently using. If you have a huge budget and won't be sacrificing the video card, then why not get an i7-920 simply for longevity?
Either way...considering it's still possible to run most games at 60+ FPS with a Core 2 Duo or Athlon x2 at decent clock speeds, you can't go wrong with an i5, PII, or i7.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News AMD deprioritizing flagship gaming GPUs: Jack Hyunh talks new strategy against Nvidia in gaming market- Started by Admin
- Replies: 72
-
Question Can someone help me determine what drives I need?
- Started by engineertech1
- Replies: 19
-
Question Does It Really Help to Only Charge a Laptop Battery Between ~40%-80%?
- Started by Crag_Hack
- Replies: 5
-
-
Question Every time I boot my PC, new SSD it is set to offline in system settings.
- Started by Yunimo
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram