Phenom as good or better than Intel in gaming?

[caamsa]

If you factor in over clocking intell is superior, but on a level playing field I would say AMD is not that far off.

My K-8 X2 6000+ is based on the same architecture that was the original K-8 that launched in 2003.

In benchmarks my processor still does fairly well in my opinion. Not bad for some 5 year old tech.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Somehow I get the feeling youre more concerned about Intel outdoing AMD than the results seen here. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=3 Now, show me this great disparity, or admit its gpu limited. OK, then go here http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=10 Again, we start seeing disparity, but on a game where we are still seeing increases by going from 3.3 to 3.6, and guess what? The Intel solution wins. If you dont see what Im saying here, nevermind, its not important. For others, Im sure theyll see the correlation

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

In non cpu limited games, which there are plenty of, the Phenom performs as well as any Intel cpu, and sometimes even wins out. This is widely known? I havnt seen this happening alot on this forum, and I believe by the responses Im getting from some people, its either new news to them, or something else

 

[megamanx00]

Well for me, my Athlon 5000 is fine for now. The problem with AMD is that they haven't advanced much from the old Windsor core. The Brisbane was an effort to cut production costs and reach higher clock speeds, at the expense of instructions per clock (IPC). It didn't work for the Pentium 4, and AMD realized quickly, but not quick enough, that it wasn't going to work for them. The Phenom was late seemingly due to bad management, didn't reach the clock speeds it needed to, and had the TLB bug for too long. I think there was so much panic of the TLB bug that AMD spent alot of resources fixing it and since those resources were not used efficiently they fell further behind.

I hope that AMD makes a bigger improvement with their 45nm chips over the previous generation, than Intel did. I'd really like to see AMD come out ahead, but for now they at least need to close the gap with Intel and have a 10% or less clock per clock performance deficit rather than the closer to 20% they have now. AMD needs to get on the ball, because I want good CPUs I can stick in my AM2+ board when I want to upgrade .

 

[zenmaster]

No, I don't get what you are saying?

Are you saying the Intel Chips handily outperform AMD Chips Clock for Clock in CPU limited games but some games are GPU limited so you can buy a less expensive Chip?

If So I agree which is why I think the E5200 which can easily hit 4.0Ghz is the sweetest deal around. When building a Gaming system, you should start there and spend as much on GPU as possible. Then as you move up the line, you need to decide on Quad vs Dual Core based upon different factors. There are many threads on Q6600 vs E8400/E8500 which are all priced similarily.

I'm not the one who created a thread titled "Phenom as good or better than Intel in Gaming?" So it is you that raised the question and provided the data. I simply pointed out that in the data you provided, AMD faired poorly and the answer was clearly "no" to your question based upon the data you provided.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But, alot of games are clearly gpu limited. We simply dont know how many, as they dont either use a Phenom, or they dont oc the cpu. So, my point is, yes Phenom can and does outdo Intels finest cpus in some games. As clearly seen here. If you come at this thread saying thats not possible, the links Ive provided clearly dispells that notion. Yes, it has to be a gpu limited game, but nonetheless, is true. So, I conclude, when it comes to gaming, unless the game isnt cpu limited, Phenom holds its own against Intel. Isnt hard to understand, tho Im thinking more surprising than anything. Sites have done a huge disservice regarding this issue towards AMD IMO.

 

[zenmaster]

But, alot of games are clearly gpu limited. We simply dont know how many, as they dont either use a Phenom, or they dont oc the cpu. So, my point is, yes Phenom can and does outdo Intels finest cpus in some games. As clearly seen here. If you come at this thread saying thats not possible, the links Ive provided clearly dispells that notion. Yes, it has to be a gpu limited game, but nonetheless, is true. So, I conclude, when it comes to gaming, unless the game isnt cpu limited, Phenom holds its own against Intel. Isnt hard to understand, tho Im thinking more surprising than anything. Sites have done a huge disservice regarding this issue towards AMD IMO.

No, you are still missing the point.
In GPU limited Games, It does not pay to buy a Phenom.
Drop $80 on an E5200 instead of $180 on a Phenom.
And if you are going to drop $180 on a Phenom, get the Q6600 which always outdoes it.

Nobody is doing AMD a disservice.

If I wanted to build a low power HTPC system, I would likely look at a BE-2400 with one of AMDs integrated graphic boards.
This is an area they have a clear advantage with chipsets with lower power as well as superior integrated graphics.

When looking at a gaming system, AMD has a tougher challenge with the cheap E5200 beating all AMD Dual Cores.
The same could be said about the E2180, but the E5200 is easily worth the extra $10.

The Q6600 can be had for as low as $160 for OEM and trounces all AMD Quad Cores.
The only ones found for less run considerably slower. So much so that the E5200 would even beat them.

 

[dagger]

No, you are still missing the point.
In GPU limited Games, It does not pay to buy a Phenom.
Drop $80 on an E5200 instead of $180 on a Phenom.
And if you are going to drop $180 on a Phenom, get the Q6600 which always outdoes it.

Nobody is doing AMD a disservice.

If I wanted to build a low power HTPC system, I would likely look at a BE-2400 with one of AMDs integrated graphic boards.
This is an area they have a clear advantage with chipsets with lower power as well as superior integrated graphics.

When looking at a gaming system, AMD has a tougher challenge with the cheap E5200 beating all AMD Dual Cores.
The same could be said about the E2180, but the E5200 is easily worth the extra $10.

The Q6600 can be had for as low as $160 for OEM and trounces all AMD Quad Cores.
The only ones found for less run considerably slower. So much so that the E5200 would even beat them.

Lol, stop wasting your breath. It's not getting through.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

So is CoH cpu or gpu limited? Im thinking were just using different terms here is all. If you say its gpu limited, then Im right, if you say its cpu limited then your right. The phenom is 2 fps difference at 19x12 at 3Ghz, with the Intel quad at 3Ghz. Read the last comment on this page http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=3

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Now, using a less limited gpu, the Intel wins out. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=2 So, by any measure, if youre gpu is limited, then a Phenom will come close to a Intel cpu. Now, since Ive stated that the newer x2 cards are held back by current cpus, or are limited/bottlenecked by them, and mainly the 4870x2 and not so much the G280, its plain to see, since most people dont have these cards, alot game at 19x12, using lessor gpus. Going by that, the phenom will hold its ground in many games, because theyre gpu limited. So having a lessr gpu we find Phenom doing well against Intel. Thats what I mean.

 

[dagger]

Now, using a less limited gpu, the Intel wins out. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=2 So, by any measure, if youre gpu is limited, then a Phenom will come close to a Intel cpu. Now, since Ive stated that the newer x2 cards are held back by current cpus, or are limited/bottlenecked by them, and mainly the 4870x2 and not so much the G280, its plain to see, since most people dont have these cards, alot game at 19x12, using lessor gpus. Going by that, the phenom will hold its ground in many games, because theyre gpu limited. So having a lessr gpu we find Phenom doing well against Intel. Thats what I mean.

How about buy a far cheaper dual when it's gpu limited? Phenom doesn't stick no matter what.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Im refering more to how much misunderstood and maligned Phenom has been , especially when it comes to gaming. I agree, it all comes down to price performance, but Ive seen many people here recommend to gamers to get a quad when it only benefits in only certain configurations in certain games. To me, this doesnt make sense, and tho youre right, if phenom doesnt bring more for more money, why bother? But, again, that wasnt the point of this thread. Im not so sure people knew whats been shown here, and have to take it into consideration while purchasing their rigs, or recommending them as well. A lessor card requires a lessor cpu in alot of games. Sometimes its overkill, sometimes its simply not known. Theres people who dont play games that dont take advantage of a faster cpu, and theyre mostly gamers, but want a quad. If the Phenoms are priced competitively, and perform to the levels shown in the games show, and even moreso with lessor cards, the Phenom has to become more considered. And like I said, thats for those who still want a quad, but a cheap one thatll perform. Like was said earlier, its more niche ATM, but with Deneb, it will become less so, and i dont see the Q66 getting faster, cheaper maybe, but not faster. Anyways, until I saw this, I was under the impression that Phenom couldnt equal Intels performance, but this shows differently, andI was surprised by it

 

[dagger]

If it's cpu limited, get intel quad, if not, cheaper duals will do just as well as expensive phenom. There is really no place for phenom. That "niche" doesn't actually exist.

 

[zenmaster]

Lol, stop wasting your breath. It's not getting through.

Well, I'm not really trying to convince to OP so much.
I'm just making sure that those less informed who may be reading, do not fall prey to not fully understanding some of the charts and think the AMD solution is as close as it may appear in some charts.

 

[keithlm]

In GPU limited Games, It does not pay to buy a Phenom.

And if you are going to drop $180 on a Phenom, get the Q6600 which always outdoes it.

The Q6600 can be had for as low as $160 for OEM and trounces all AMD Quad Cores.

Actually in GPU limited games it does not pay to buy a QUAD CORE from ANY company.

I agree: why spend $180.00 on a Phenom when you can get the 9950 for $159.00.

====================

But to use the word trounces? Interesting word.

trounce (trouns)
v. trounced, trounc·ing, trounc·es
1. To thrash; beat.
2. To defeat decisively.

Let's review the known facts as they are today and see if the word is applicable:

■The Phenom 9950 can be had for as low as $159.00 for OEM and it has no problems competing with the Q6600 at the same price.
■The Phenom competes easily at stock speeds based on CPU price.
■The Phenom competes easily at average overclock speeds. (The Phenom does even better as the frequency goes up.)
■AND LAST: Considering that Intel is getting a major portion of it's performance from a larger cache which is 400% LARGER than the Phenom's cache that means that the Phenom is actually doing a pretty good job against Intel. (Actually with a cache that big the Intel should be doing much better.)

RESULT OF WORD REVIEW: You have selected a poor word to use to describe the comparison at this time. You are living in the past. (Or was it just wishful thinking on your part?)

Well, I'm not really trying to convince to OP so much.
I'm just making sure that those less informed who may be reading, do not fall prey to not fully understanding some of the charts and think the AMD solution is as close as it may appear in some charts.

Many Intel fanatics say that exact same thing while they are spewing out untrue statements just like you did in your earlier post.

Luckily there are some of us here to let the less informed know that they should not fall prey to people like you.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, so, these findings are untrue, so dont look at them? Is that what you mean, as Im "trying to get victims?" Im surprised by these findings. Are you? Or is this just some scheme? Ill let you decide heheh. Anyways, this was refreshing news to me. It appears things arent so dominated in the Intel aisle as I thought

 

[zenmaster]

Actually in GPU limited games it does not pay to buy a QUAD CORE from ANY company.

I agree: why spend $180.00 on a Phenom when you can get the 9950 for $159.00.

====================

But to use the word trounces? Interesting word.

trounce (trouns)
v. trounced, trounc·ing, trounc·es
1. To thrash; beat.
2. To defeat decisively.

Let's review the known facts as they are today and see if the word is applicable:

■The Phenom 9950 can be had for as low as $159.00 for OEM and it has no problems competing with the Q6600 at the same price.
■The Phenom competes easily at stock speeds based on CPU price.
■The Phenom competes easily at average overclock speeds. (The Phenom does even better as the frequency goes up.)
■AND LAST: Considering that Intel is getting a major portion of it's performance from a larger cache which is 400% LARGER than the Phenom's cache that means that the Phenom is actually doing a pretty good job against Intel. (Actually with a cache that big the Intel should be doing much better.)

RESULT OF WORD REVIEW: You have selected a poor word to use to describe the comparison at this time. You are living in the past. (Or was it just wishful thinking on your part?)



Many Intel fanatics say that exact same thing while they are spewing out untrue statements just like you did in your earlier post.

Luckily there are some of us here to let the less informed know that they should not fall prey to people like you.

If you look at the links Provided, the 3.0Ghz Phenom lost 120FPS to 125FPS to the 2.4Ghz Q6600.
(Provided by an AMD Fan, not me. So I'm not picking and choosing my data.)

The Q6600 can easily hit 3.6Ghz on modest cooling and 3.8 is common with good air cooling.
The Reviews I've seen are close to a 3.2 to 3.4 max on Air and water required for more.
On top of that the Phenom uses more power when at the same clock.

In summary, It loses when it is clocked 600Mhz Higher.
If I increase the Q6600 by 50% and the Phenom by only 10% as could be reasonably be expected on air, the Phenom is really beginning to trail.

I find the Cache Argument quite amusing.
#1 - Intel's Cache is Twice the Size not 4 times. (2MB L2 + 2MB L3)=4MB Cache vs 8MB L2 Cache.
#2 - It's part of the CPU Design. The 45nm chips have even more cache because the smaller manufacturing process allows room for more cache. (Still not 4x)

I'm still not seeing the argument for the Phenom.
Little Price Difference Up Front. (Actually if you consider required cooling costs, its likely not even there.)
Quickly Lost due to Higher Energy Consumption.
They need a very large Mhz advantage to even come close to matching performance, yet can't even hit the same speeds.

 

[husky mctarflash]

Won't happen I'm afraid. Deneb is basically a die shrink with a larger L3 cache and perhaps some minor tweaks thrown in.

Even if Deneb is a miracle Nehalem killer, boasting about it now is hardly going to give Intel much of a heads up. It takes a LOT more than a few months to create a new CPU, look how long Intel took to make a CPU that beat K8.

A few months ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with epsilon. However, the 4800 series ATI cards were mostly a die shrink from the 3800 with a few tweaks thrown in (if I understand it correctly), and the 4800s completely changed the face of the graphics card industry over night. Is it wishful thinking that AMD is being coy in an attempt to catch Intel as flat footed as it caught NVidia? Perhaps. Is it possible that AMD is copying that ATI product release strategy? Yes.

This is an interesting thread, regarding an interesting scenario that may be discussed in business schools for years to come. I am happy to see such good commentary coming from both sides (as there should be!!!). I have nothing constructive to add, other than simply that I want AMD to get back to being competitive so that I have a legitimate choice for my next new build. ATI's 4800 series has made the GPU industry much more interesting (i.e., better performance and cheaper), and I hope AMD can do the same for CPUs.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Fairly interesting read, just makes me think about what actually makes any given processor/architecture good at gaming compared to synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark.

The Phenoms in those links faired equal or just below the Intel cpu's in those game benchmarks, but in synthetic benchmarks they pail in comparison. Why is that?

The answer is simple. Most tests (other than games) actually test the processors performance. When it comes to games, we're limited and bottlenecked by the Graphics card.

If you really wanted to test the performance of both processors, you would need more graphics performance. In games, as it stands, with a single Graphics card they're quite competitive and have always been.

Games are a horrible way to calculate CPU performance.

 

[zenmaster]

OK, so, these findings are untrue, so dont look at them? Is that what you mean, as Im "trying to get victims?" Im surprised by these findings. Are you? Or is this just some scheme? Ill let you decide heheh. Anyways, this was refreshing news to me. It appears things arent so dominated in the Intel aisle as I thought

I think your numbers show that Intel is still very dominant and reinforce why I would never consider a Phenom. Either I can save money on a much less expensive CPU when the horesepower is not needed and if I do need the oomph in some games, Phenom does not have it.

So either I overspend or don't get what I need.
Maybe in a few years AMD will have a competitve chip.

Hopefully they will be able to continue to operate at these loses for a while longer to keep the Intel Chip prices down to a reasonable level.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Glad you didnt look at these http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=3 http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=6 which also shows using nVidias best card at 19x12 res, the AMD cpu within 2 fps in one game and tied in the other. Like I said, dont look at em, please. And as far as being a fanboy or whatever HAHAHAHA I could care less about AMD unless they go out of business and we end up with a monopoly and suffer for it. Hope thats somewheres in my AMD fanboy handbook, as i wouldnt want to mention anything that may look like I dont care HA HA HA

 

[bobby45512]

jaydee that shows it is gpu limited the difference in 2 fps can be due to other factors and hardware and anomalies.

also...

The thing is, cache has a limit and wall per se too. There are benches that show that the cache failed to increase performance after a certain amount.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Exactly my point. If the G280 is limited, then arent all the rest, EXCEPT tthe x2? What it all comes down to is balance. You can show me link where the x2 suffers more from a weaker cpu than the G280, but thats an imbalanced setup. As is alot of games even using a G280 with a Intel or Phenom. It isnt until you bring out a better gpu til you see that the Phenom is actually quite a bit slower. Thats a sur[rise

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

So, unless youre using the fastest gpu made today, I conclude, in some games, a phenom is equal to any Intel cpus. Theres 2 games from that link that show this. The others games are cpu limited, and then the Intel cpus pull ahead. Many things make up a rig/setup. Ram has recently been seen once again with Vista 64 as being important in some games, as well as cache too. Theres more than 1 bottleneck, but the 2 main driving forces in games is the cpu and gpu, and the balance they have.

 

[bobby45512]

Jaydee I know what you're saying, when a game is gpu limited the processor doesn't really matter as the graphics card will be mostly limiting you. You cannot say that phenoms are just as good as intels core 2 in a gpu limited game just because the difference is small, what it is saying is that the graphics card perform the same because they are the same. So on the end why spend the money on a phenom (like i did phenom 9500 b2 stepping..bahh) or intel quad when you can get a cheap dual core.