Jennyh, have you seen these? Phenom II vs i7 vs c2dualcore

[Raidur]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5870-cpu-scaling_2.html#sect0

You've seen these right jenny?

Pretty sure I remember a past argument going something like this.

Jennyh: phenom ii > i7, let alone i5

Me: Benchmarks with low resolutions show us that the i7 out-performs phenom ii when the gpu bottleneck is lifted.

Jennyh: i7 just runs better at low resolutions, it is not due to bottlenecking.

Well... now that we finally have benchmarks with a stronger gpu setup than a single 5870 (5870xfire) on resolutions most of us actually play at we can see who was right. And imagine that, once the second 5870 is added the i7 creams phenom ii. A lot of times we even see the i7 winning at 2.7 against the phenom ii at 4.1ghz.

Is this yet another site that is paid by intel to lie or would you admit defeat and stop spreading this phenom ii > i7 in games.

The only time phenom ii wins is when there is a gpu bottleneck present, and it is almost never more than a few fps (the garbage a lot of reviews show).

 

[Chad Boga]

Oh so wait now it's Lynnfield i7's?

Are there any other stipulations you'd like to add before i ridicule your arguments some more?

You have been the fool who always ignores the Lynnfield i7's.

 

[jennyh]

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, why does the AMD system only have 2GB of RAM? DDR2 at that.

It's because review sites basically have to jump through hoops in order to make Phenom II lose to i7 in gaming. :lol:

 

[bige420]

This is fanboy ridiculousness at its highest.

 

[jennyh]

You have been the fool who always ignores the Lynnfield i7's.

I'll give you a hint bogus. When me and Raidur first had this discussion, there were no Lynnfields.

Now lets assume that was a Lynnfield i7 in the legionhardware benchmark. Tell me exactly how that would have made a difference?


...



....



Oh wait it wouldnt have, would it?

 

[Raidur]

Those benchmarks are the first of its kind, that I have seen, to have the Phenom II 940 beating the i7 920 by that much of a margin on those games.

It's hard to go along with what you're saying when 99% of benchmarks speak the opposite.

Also you keep talking about the 800x600 resolution being trash when you show the legion benchmark that has the trash high bottlenecking resolution of 25xxX15xx resolution which almost none of us use as well.

Lets get some more benchmarks with 5870xfire and above at regular resolutions before we start deciding one way or another, but from what I've seen I'm still leaning towards i7.

 

[Raidur]

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, why does the AMD system only have 2GB of RAM? DDR2 at that.

And a system with 2GB of DDR2 1200MHZ is going to perform nearly exactly the same as 4GB of DDR3-1600MHZ in games.

We should all know this by now. Even if the DDR2 was 800mhz there wouldn't be much of a difference.

 

[keithlm]

Hang on, maybe that is why you are allowed to embarrass yourselves like you do, it makes AMD users out to be mentally unstable and Intel users as cool, hip and normal by comparison. :lol:

Yeah... keep telling yourself that you are "cool", "hip" and "normal". If you chant that while you close your eyes and click your heals together perhaps you can make it come true. But please don't stop being completely blind: things get boring when we don't have people like you attempting to bend reality.

what makes you say that?

about all of the first ~12 CPUs in the month's best CPUs are AMD, compared to even the Phenom being one of the best later on

you have no sense

Bravo! Good attempt and pretending to not realize that I was replying to somebody and that the statement had nothing to do with anything other than that. People jumping in and not reading the rest of the thread could be fooled by such a diversion.

You attempted to make a solid statement that was in no way ambiguous appear senseless. For that you get an uber-fail.

 

[jennyh]

Why do so many reviews show the i7 failing so badly compared to real gaming cpu's?

Some awesome quotes in that one btw. I like..

This time, Intel's Core i7 920 falters, handicapping performance to below the level of AMD's Phenom X3 8750.

What's your favourite?

 

[Chad Boga]

Yeah... keep telling yourself that you are "cool", "hip" and "normal".

Only compared to you and Ginny(I think she is drunk again).

 

[AMW1011]

Lets see here, so I'm led to believe that:

Phenom II is the best gaming CPU

It is better than the i5 750

It is better than any i7

Anyone who says other wise is biased

Why is this argument still here, it is pure non-sense?

Show me ONE gaming benchmarks from that Legionshardware review that shows a lead significant enough to be called provable. You can't.

Here is the truth, once and for all:

Phenom II performs identical to the i5 and i7 in gaming. There are no clear winners, if you think so then you honestly have problems. The differences shown in any decent article are either insignificant or as a result of variables. i5 and i7 are notably faster in some non-gaming apps which isn't really all that important to the vast majority of people, but important to some. Right now the CPU doesn't make much of a difference at all and is pretty inconsequential. That said, the i7 is faster and in the future when the CPU is an actual bottleneck the i7 will do better, but by that time neither CPU will be worth much. In the end, unless you benefit from the non-gaming apps that love i7, or you want some of the features of the package, or are building a high budget system where you would want the absolute best, you could probably do better by getting a cheap Phenom II or Athlon II X4.

In the end:

i7>i5>Phenom II~Core2Quad~Athlon II X4

In gaming:

i7~i5~Phenom II X4~Core2Quad*~Athlon II X4>Phenom II X3/X2~Athlon II X2~i3~i5 6xx~Core2Duo 45nm
*not the Q8xxx series or Q9300, they just suck

However, those > signs are very insignificant in the vast majority of the time.

If you are paying more than $150 for a Phenom II 925 then you are paying too much for a gaming CPU and could probably get away with an Athlon II X4 620 for $50 less. That is the truth.

I bought an i5 750 because I wanted the ability to utilize SLI and Crossfire on the same board, I lost no performance in gaming by doing this and I only gained non-gaming performance that I will never utilize, What I did gain was a CPU that fits my needs. If I could have gotten that from AMD I would have purchased a Phenom II X4 925 instead and saved some money.

Call me what you will, throw non-nonsensical BS as much as you want, and pound your fists into the ground in defiance, but if you say that either the i7/i5 or the Phenom II is better in gaming than the other you are wrong.

 

[jennyh]

Nah it's actually quite easy to say the Phenom II is better than the i7 in gaming because the benchmarks prove it

 

[keithlm]

And a system with 2GB of DDR2 1200MHZ is going to perform nearly exactly the same as 4GB of DDR3-1600MHZ in games.

We should all know this by now. Even if the DDR2 was 800mhz there wouldn't be much of a difference.

Whether this is true or not is debatable.

What is NOT debatable is that even we accept this as being 100% true it does not give professional reviewers a license to use inferior hardware in any system when doing a comparison benchmark. When they do they show bias and basically compromise their results.

I'll give a better hint: if even ONE benchmark result is changed by not using inferior memory in one of the systems compared then the reviewer has done a shoddy job.

 

[Atranox]

Okay - anyone that claims that a Phenom II is better than an i7 is flat out wrong. Then again, acting as if the Phenom II is garbage is also just as ignorant. It's nice looking at benchmarks and seeing an i7 come out on top most of the time, but you need to remember to apply those benchmarks to real-world situations. A win is a win, but a 5% difference in processing times or framerates makes absolutely no difference the majority of the time. When you compress a video, do you really care whether or not it takes 60 minutes or 55 minutes? Chances are, you'll be AFK for the entire process anyways. For gaming - do you really consider 62 FPS to be better than 60 FPS? Personally, I consider it to be a wash.

For general PC usage, multitasking, and gaming - it's a wash. Coming from someone who has used both an OCed i7-860 and PII 955 for gaming, there is absolutely no difference. For heavier multimedia stuff and anything that utilizes hyperthreading, an i7 is a clear choice. Basically, it comes down to what we already know - if you have the money to spend, you may as well get an i7. If you are on a moderate budget or won't be doing any form of significant multimedia, then you'll be perfectly fine with an i5 or Phenom II.

Yeah, the i7's are truly excellent processors and are the best out there. However, the i5-750 and higher-end PII's are close enough behind to also make them outstanding choices for processors.

 

[Upendra09]

hey jenny chill don't get personal

 

[AMW1011]

Nah it's actually quite easy to say the Phenom II is better than the i7 in gaming because the benchmarks prove it

I'm talking reality, not theories. The point is you WILL NEVER SEE THE DIFFERENCE. This whole argument is retarded, "WHICH CPU IS BEST FOR GAMING!?" Well lets see here, a $50 dualcore can perform on-par with most CPUs today, so where do you see any wins in the $200+ area?

 

[Raidur]

Whether this is true or not is debatable.

What is NOT debatable is that even we accept this as being 100% true it does not give professional reviewers a license to use inferior hardware in any system when doing a comparison benchmark. When they do they show bias and basically compromise their results.

I'll give a better hint: if even ONE benchmark result is changed by not using inferior memory in one of the systems compared then the reviewer has done a shoddy job.

No I agree, and I wish they did the review differently. I just can't see how the memory difference would make such a dramatic difference. Really it shouldn't, especially considering a lot of people upgrade on AM2+/DDR2 and are expecting only a 5-10% difference in performance (if that) when compared to an AM3/DDR3 setup.

I do agree though, I hope they re-write the review, they really muffed up their hardware selections.

 

[keithlm]

hey jenny chill don't get personal

I AGREE: Please stop pointing reality out to them Jenny. It hurts their feelings and they take it personally.

 

[Upendra09]

no i meant more alng the lines of don't call them names and talk about the rest like you are yourself

don't misinterpret me, if you do i will assume you are trying to get me banned along with yourself

 

[jimmysmitty]

I personally think that in the end a AM3+ and DDR3 with dual HD5870s wont make enough of a difference in gaming since the memory bandwidth needed in games doesn't even go beyond a FSB CPU and PCIe 2.0 x8/x8 is not slower than PCIe 2.0 x16/x16 to really warrant a huge performance boost.

I would like to see a AM3 added though to see and full PCIe 2.0 x16/x16.

As for the memory, they were all nice brands and the DDR2 itself was probably on par performance wise with the DDR3 because of the higher DDR3 latencies. Once DDR3 gets the latencies down and the memory speeds increase it will make a slight difference in apps that can use it but gaming probably wont be one of those.

 

[Raidur]

Jenny is just angry. I can see why, it's hard not to get angry when you believe something and someone is telling you that you're wrong. Especially when you are a minority (female) and you get ganged up on.

But can you see why we believe what WE believe jenny?

We have seen the couple benches that point to Phenom II, but the fact still stands that MOST benchmarks point to i7. Whether they are gaming or not.

How can we believe something when we are told by all other directions the opposite?

Unless most review sites are 'paid by intel', then you are pretty much saying every reviewer that has claimed that i7 > Phenom II in games is wrong.

How can you say that when time and time again they are saying i7 > Phenom II [in gaming]?

Even Tom's has said it.

I think time will tell. Once we get some more benchmarks with stronger GPU setups than 4870x2 on real resolutions I think we'll find our answer.

But tbh I'd bet my computer that i7 is going to win when the GPU is not the limiting factor. IE: 5870 crossfire and higher on resolution of 1920x1200 or lower.

 

[jennyh]

Yep Raidur, and like I said before -

It used to be the 4870 wasnt fast enough, then the gtx280 wasnt fast enough, then the 4870x2 wasn't fast enough, the the gtx295.

All those graphics cards just not fast enough to show the real power of the i7...the same i7 that was already trailing behind the Phenom II.

Now the 5970 isn't fast enough either? Ye right.

 

[keithlm]

and PCIe 2.0 x8/x8 is not slower than PCIe 2.0 x16/x16 to really warrant a huge performance boost.

Yes... only about a 800 point difference in the synthetic 3dMark Vantage score. Not really enough to matter.

Unless you are a professional reviewer doing a comparative benchmark. In that case you must use the same for all systems being compared or you are incompetent.

 

[AMW1011]

This is getting so sad, people arguing over 1-3 FPS or 5 seconds on this or that benchmark to validate one of two points that are both incorrect.

YOU WILL NEVER SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE CPUS IN GAMING!!!!!

God, I swear Tom's forums isn't biased towards Intel or AMD, it is a battlefield between the two biases where common sense goes out the window. Wake me up please, I think I'm having a nightmare where everyone has become stupid.

 

[Upendra09]

^+1

 

[Raidur]

The 5970 is isn't fast enough when the resolution is 25x15 jenny. Don't forget that part.