Phenom as good or better than Intel in gaming?

[MarkG]

For 99% of home users, an energy efficient AMD X2 4x50e would suffice and be "better" and cheaper as all they do is surf the web and play minesweeper. Even those chips are ridiculously overpowered for most people.

Well, yes, I suppose I should have said '99% of home users who care in the slightest about performance,' but I thought that would be obvious from the context. If they just play minesweeper and browse the web, then they'd be better off with an Atom or Via CPU... certainly they shouldn't be even thinking of buying a Phenom.

As to how much better i7 will be, we don't have the necessary info. Some say it will be an improvement over yorkfield by 10%. Some say the automatic overclocking will take the cake. We don't know how well i7's IMC will work, as AMD spent a lot of time getting it to work right.

There have been plenty of pre-release benchmarks showing 10-30% improvements over a comparable Core 2 CPU and the IMC utterly destroying anything else on the market. Maybe Intel will hit a 'TLB bug' of their own on release chips, but right now Nehalem looks placed to easily beat anything AMD have available in the near future.

 

[speedbird]

The AMD Phenom 9550 now retails typically below £100, which is good value. The Q6600 is around 20 something pounds more, which isn't a huge difference, but there is those who have a very tight budget. Triple cores are now typically starting around £70, which are fine for budget systems. No, they wont beat Intel in games, but they still offer good performance combined with a decent GFX card. Even the phenom 9950 can be had around the Q6600 price, which pretty much offers comparable performance. Not everybody overclocks, so the Intel overclocking argument is not always relevant. AMD still has much to offer and I'm fed up with the Intel fanboy crowd who are on a a stuck record.

Intel's seem to do well in set applications like games and encoding, but one thing overlooked is responsiveness. My Q6600 does fantastic in the games I play, but I find AMD is much more responsive when the load gets heavy. Intel's seem to stutter under heavy Multi-tasking, but AMD seem much more composed. If I wasn't a gamer I would be using AMD because I find them better all rounders.

 

[MarkG]

Intel's seem to do well in set applications like games and encoding, but one thing overlooked is responsiveness.

Probably because we only have people's subjective claims on the subject without even a blind test where they don't know what CPU they're using.

Personally I see zero difference in responsiveness between my Core Duo and Athlon X2, and I have to run >20 active threads simultaneously on my Intel quad system before it starts to become unresponsive (e.g. long lag when moving the mouse).

 

[spud]

The AMD Phenom 9550 now retails typically below £100, which is good value. The Q6600 is around 20 something pounds more, which isn't a huge difference, but there is those who have a very tight budget. Triple cores are now typically starting around £70, which are fine for budget systems. No, they wont beat Intel in games, but they still offer good performance combined with a decent GFX card. Even the phenom 9950 can be had around the Q6600 price, which offers pretty much offers comparable performance. Not everybody overclocks, so the Intel overclocking argument is not always relevant. AMD still has much to offer and I'm fed up with the Intel fanboy crowd who are on a a stuck record.

Intel's seem to do well in set applications like games and encoding, but one thing overlooked is responsiveness. My Q6600 does fantastic in the games I play, but I find AMD is much more responsive when the load gets heavy. Intel's seem to stutter under heavy Multi-tasking, but AMD seem much more composed. If I wasn't a gamer I would be using AMD because I find them better all rounders.

I only get stuttering when im tabbing through 2 applications that are heavy on ram and processor usesage (2 copies of wow) other than that I will get hesitation when my RAID'd HDD's are overly taxed with Vista doing indexing or whatever it does in the background, while im say opening a RAR file or running a system check. You claim the Intel machine will stutter while the AMD machine will not yet you make no claims on the memory or storage subsystem which in both cases will drag the machine down, frankly ive seen both running and ive noticed the same behavior on both machines with very similar hardware setups so I frankly dont see your point.

Word, Playa.

 

[speedbird]

Admittedly it is hard to prove because I couldn't benchmark this, but I just find AMD CPU's to be more responsive. I know I'm not the only person to make such a claim, while it's a opinion rather than any hard evidence, it's just a view I have taken using various Intel and AMD setups. Intel CPU's seem to excel in applications, but I don't think this tells the whole story. I have a feeling Intel's new CPU's will be much improved when it comes to heavy multi-tasking. In the meantime I firmly believe AMD feel more smoother.

I say again, this is just down to my own personal experiences.

 

[yomamafor1]

The Q6600 I'm on now only stutters when two copies of graphical intensive programs are running at the same time (F@H & FSX). From my personal experience, I find your claim that AMD CPU run smoother completely groundless.

 

[speedbird]

I picked a Q6600 for a reason, but I feel AMD CPU's have strengths of their own even though they are slower in certain applications. I believe perhaps it's down to AMD CPU's being more integrated, which Intel will offer with their next line of CPU's.

 

[yomamafor1]

I guess the result really depends on how well a user set up his/her own computer. Given the fact that most people don't experience the stuttering you claimed, I suppose this is an extremely isolated event, and largely depends on software implementation and computer usage.

 

[dagger]

I guess the result really depends on how well a user set up his/her own computer. Given the fact that most people don't experience the stuttering you claimed, I suppose this is an extremely isolated event, and largely depends on software implementation and computer usage.

Or more likely, all the malware that would've done the same thing regardless of which cpu. You have to consider the level of people we're dealing with here.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Admittedly it is hard to prove because I couldn't benchmark this, but I just find AMD CPU's to be more responsive. I know I'm not the only person to make such a claim, while it's a opinion rather than any hard evidence, it's just a view I have taken using various Intel and AMD setups. Intel CPU's seem to excel in applications, but I don't think this tells the whole story. I have a feeling Intel's new CPU's will be much improved when it comes to heavy multi-tasking. In the meantime I firmly believe AMD feel more smoother.

I say again, this is just down to my own personal experiences.

And you are right about one thing here. Its all opinion. My opinion is my Q6600 is much more responsive than anything I have ever used and that includes Athlon X2s. No Phenoms yet though. ANd I tend to multitask a lot. Last night I was playing Guild Wars (through Steam none the lss to use Steam chat) with WMP playng a CD and about 15 IE7.0s up. And the game kept at its cap of 60FPS with everything maxed. All on Vista.

See it all depends really. If you start to add more and more memory intensive programs, yes AMD will seem smoother because it can access and push that memory faster than Intel currently can.

All I see from the OP is games being run at res and settings that take more dependance on the GPU than the CPU. Of course there will be some games that utilize CPUs better than others as they are optimized for them, just like how some games do better on certain GPUs (Source based games always do best on ATI cards).

When gaming at that high of a res CPU doesn't come into play as much as does the GPU.

 

[yipsl]

Intel's seem to do well in set applications like games and encoding, but one thing overlooked is responsiveness. My Q6600 does fantastic in the games I play, but I find AMD is much more responsive when the load gets heavy. Intel's seem to stutter under heavy Multi-tasking, but AMD seem much more composed. If I wasn't a gamer I would be using AMD because I find them better all rounders.

The 8750 does well in games that use more than 2 cores (Supreme Commander) and does better than Athlon X2's while matching lower end C2D's. It's not far below the Q6600 when the Intel CPU's at stock. In fact, I didn't see a major game related boost to going with a 9750 as even games that support 4 cores place the 4 and 3 core CPU's neck and neck.

Forget which thread I posted the individual benchmark links, but I did so recently. You can find the same reviews of the 8750 from April to June and it still looks good in Tom's CPU charts.

Tom's Hardware - Benchmark Sandra 2008 - Memory Bandwidth

My so called "triple cripple" is worth it's $129 price tag, and it really improves performance of my once highest end graphics card (only 9 months ago :lol: How things change so fast!). What I need to do is test it under load where I'm doing several things at once. So far this week, I haven't had time.

You claim the Intel machine will stutter while the AMD machine will not yet you make no claims on the memory or storage subsystem which in both cases will drag the machine down, frankly ive seen both running and ive noticed the same behavior on both machines with very similar hardware setups so I frankly dont see your point.

Word, Playa.

Hyper Transport seems to be better for memory intensive tasks and multitasking than Intel's current FSB. I'm sure Nehalem will play catch up quite well, so the anecdotal differences will disappear. I've noted that my new triple core on 780G is more responsive under Vista SP1 than was my old Athlon X2.

I wouldn't try running Vista on the old P630 in the closet. Hyperthreading or not, what will make the Nehalem is Intel's version of hypertransport, plus a 10-30% increase over C2D. Deneb might be 10-20% faster than B3, which will put them in Penryn and Yorkfield range, but they'll still be a bit behind Nehalem; especially since both will have memory controllers on the CPU.

 

[speedbird]

I have two core2 based systems and they both suffer from stutters when multi-tasking takes place, which I have experienced on AMD too but AMD just seem to be able to handle more without slowing down. Intel also seem to be suffer from quick temporal pauses (freezes), which I have yet to experience on any AMD system I have used . I still have my old X2 system and despite it's age feels more snappier when I'm working with multiple programs. I can't explain why, but AMD just feels smoother to work with for me.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

Doesn't matter what cpu you stick in a box for gaming as long as it is a dual core and a bit over 2 Ghz.

What matters is the graphics card.

Show me where I can game at a decent resolution with a Q6600 @ 3Ghz and a cr@ppy 6 series graphics card ??

Your joking right ??

All this rubbish about the cpu is annoying when your overclocked beast has a low end graphics card in it ...

I can't play ah heck all with a 7900GS let alone a 9600GT ...

Not with all of the eye candy on.

It starts to matter when you're using Multiple cards (SLI and CrossfireX).

 

[OhFoSHO]

Yeeeaahhh.. Uhm, no offense to all you AMD guys, but Intel isn't just barely winning the CPU war... They've damn-near shut the doors to AMD, no thanks to their Phenom. I'm sticking to my BE5000 until the next iteration of AMD is unveiled. AMD likely won't strongarm Intel into submission as their product is simply a revision of what is on our market today. Sure, it'll likely succeed current Phenoms. It MAY be able to finally take down the Q6600, but you really have to be quite the optimist if you think it'll take down i7, which has been stated to trounce its predecessors.

All AMD will have is a smaller wafer with more L3 and lower running temps. This, at best, would take on the outdated inventory of Intel in regards to midrang performance and allow a bang for the buck if overclocking proves to be worthy.

Intel is coming out with a new CPU that has features that haven't been seen on a Intel CPU before. Features that AMD has employed to make K8s the success they were. This on modern Quad Core would make it faster as it sits, let alone on a new CPU with 2 more cores and OC abilities that are automatically handled by the system itself.

Yeah.. I hope that L3 is laced in cocaine... And I LOVE AMD...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Using a G280, currently the fastest single core gpu of the day, and seeing it bottlenecking in some games, where AMDs current lineup does well, if the forthcoming iterations are close to what Intel has out currently, gaming on AMD or Intel will become a moot point, as either cpu may deliver enough for current games, using a single core gpu. That, and from what weve seen with i7, and its lack of performance over its older brothers offers AMD a chance AMD hasnt seen in awhile. Thats IF the newer cores from AMD perform. And IF everything weve seen concerning i7 and gaming is true. For max performance, youll most likely see Intel holding overall, but as wee see whats currently available in games, AMD cpus may just do well, as there really isnt any games out thats going to "need" an Intel cpu. How this translates to the future of AMD as far as gaming goes, is unseen, but encouraging for them nonetheless, as they edge closer. IF the new AMDs come in at say 15%, and Intels i7 maybe just 4% overall in games, the gap may become indistinguishable. IF thats the case, that will be good news for them. What Im saying is, if Intels currently are more than enough for gaming, and AMD comes close, it wont matter anymore

 

[MarkG]

What Im saying is, if Intels currently are more than enough for gaming, and AMD comes close, it wont matter anymore

Relying on your competitors making a big screwup is generally not the best business plan; maybe AMD will get lucky, but that's not something I'd want to bet my company on.

And relying on a games being GPU-limited rather than CPU-limited is certainly not the best business plan for a company like AMD that makes high-end GPUs... the better their GPUs become, the worse their CPUs will look.

 

[Reynod]

Problem is every PC needs a CPU.

But the graphics market has a few more players and most of the graphics chips sold are low end entry level parts.

AMD can't pull itself out of the pea soup it is in with ATI's current offerings.

I can't recall but don't Intel sell more gpu's than anyone else ?? Those cheesy low end things not worthy of mentionning to a gamer ... but stuck in most corporate boxes.

Just thought I'd hyjack the topic ... before the tumleweeds take over anyway.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

So far, in single core gpus, it may not matter. Multi gpus I couldnt agree more. And like you say, next gen of gpus, that may hold true as well, then again maybe not. Im of the current belief current x2s have outpaced anything Intel can offer, unless its super cooled, and maybe not even then. So, what its come down to is, were currently having to go to large res', using highest oces and then when using a multi card setup, it still isnt enough, I see the cpu as so much less imporetant in gaming than it has ever been, and while AMD makes up some ground, then the gap becomes moot. As gpus increase in power, unless games demand such power from the gpu AND the cpu, its again moot. Im sure AMD isnt depending on how slow everything SW is not so much their weakness, but speaks more about the SW. If both companies have pretty much a nice lead over needs and SW developement, then whos to say AMD isnt doing good? Even tho Intel is faster, it becomes less important

 

[yomamafor1]

But John you have to remember that gaming is not what drives this market. This market is driven by performance of generic programs, and cost. At the moment Intel can offer the same performance, or slightly superior performance, for lower price. Aside from that, Intel has sunk in a lot of money in getting their names out, so people do recognize them instead of AMD.

So on some level, you're right, Phenom is relatively on par with Intel's part in gaming. But again, gaming is simply a horrible way to gauge CPU's performance. So it doesn't matter if Phenom can get +/- 2FPS within Intel CPU's performance in X game, people still will choose Intel over AMD because Intel CPU is indeed superior in other general tasks.

On the topic of graphics processor, while AMD does offer better graphical solution than Intel, majority of the market does not need a 4870X2 to play WoW, or to run basic graphics on Vista; majority of the market do not drop more than 500 bucks just for a GPU solution, but rather for an entire computer. In this case, Intel can provide a much cheaper solution, while maintaining its superior image, so people would go for it.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thats not exactly my point here. Cpu growth as we know it is diminishing, as the needs of better cpus just currently arent here, and thats mainly due to SW. Apps like CUDA diminish a quadcore for things like video encoding,3D emulation etc. This is the main reason Intel heads in the server direction, because DT, until SW actually can make it worthwhile, is slowed in requirements of cpus. Add with that the slowing weve seen in IPC and core speeds and its even more apparent. It just seems that Intel has reached the slowing developmental curve in cpus quicker than AMD, whereas AMD has a lil growing room yet, with IPC, core speeds and even HKMG. If Intel could have brought about huge gains in IPC or core speeds, we would have seen more than what weve seen in i7. Im of the impression the gains seen in the future AMD vs Intel cpus the advantage will be seen on the AMD side. If SW doesnt catch up, and that includes games, then if currently Intel cpus are perceived as being more than fast enough, AMD cpus with more improvements should be considered fast enough, until SW moves ahead. Marketing is nice, and when AMD moves to 45nm, their costs wont be so prohibitive as to make a greater profit on them, while maintaining their current pricing, which again moves the bar up for AMD. If SW doesnt move ahead, you can bet AMD will catch up, which is what were starting to see. Using mulicore gpus is a HW thing, and as Ive said, unless youre using one or them in sli/cf, even AMDs cpus keep up in some games, which will only widen with better cpus from AMD. Im not sure what apps can be used that cant be done better on a gpu that the main user would use to determine their purchases. This isnt an argument, just curious? Word of mouth plays a significant role here as well, as does the OEMs. So, all in all, if the current situation doesnt change, I see better days ahead for AMD.
As far as graphics go, if nVidias IGPs can use CUDA to any extent, this will have an impact as well, as who wouldnt want better encoding/3D apps performance? Everything has to be priced right of course, and in some areas Intel currently cant compete, tho they are small areas, but could change if CUDA becomes more mainstream , as well see more apps coming this fall.
Im not saying this is a takeover, nor am I saying AMD is superior in any way other than IGP and possibly encoding/3D apps if they ever get that going. What I am saying is, I just dont see games nor any other SW used by average Joe outgrowing the needs of a AMD cpu, if anything, I see the gpu and gpgpu as being the opposite, as compared to cpu usage.

 

[Superhal]

i didn't read everything, but basically, the phenom catches up to the intels when overclocked. the problem though is that they can't overclock enough and they all overclock differently. two identical models of phenoms will get two different overclocks. my chip, for example, with only a 20% overclock gets a 4.1k 3dmark06 cpu score.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thats true and expected as well as they are so much on the edge. Just like Intels, at their highest theres a wider and more fluctuating returns on ocing. Its just Intel usually takes it alo0t higher, and tho some may say Intels are more consistant, I think that has more to do with nodes than anuthing. AMD never really truly conquered 65nm, so we dont see the consistancy we see with Intel at 65nm, and Intels 45nm cpus are somewhat restricted by the node itself, causing and demanding lower voltages

 

[amdfangirl]

Not conquered 65nm? Athlon X2 Brisbane... full stop.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

AMDs design is just not tweaked enough at 65nm. It went from the same design with bad results to 65nm, and now goes completely different at 45, having barely touched the 65nm at that node too. Its still questionable if 45nm will be better for AMD or not. It very well could be slightly better, but without hkmg, it wont reign supreme heheh. Its also possible that AMDs tranny design isnt the greatest either, meaning at some points in the overall design of thier cpus, a portion has too much leakage, which could effect the overall performance. Im not sure where they leak the most, whether its their cache or somewheres else, but I suspect it may be the cache, as so far were seeing better performance with the leaked Denebs and their "new" cache. Not too sure about all of this, but so far, thats where it looks like AMD fails. Overall design and materials make up the rest of AMDs limations and ocing variances, plus, like I said, lack of dev at process, as theyve gotten so far bwehind, and are just cruising thru each process/node without alot of maturing, all the while changing their designs drastically

 

[keithlm]

Yeeeaahhh.. Uhm, no offense to all you AMD guys, but Intel isn't just barely winning the CPU war... They've damn-near shut the doors to AMD, no thanks to their Phenom.

Your sentence reveals much about how people can be fooled by popular opinion and biased benchmark reviews. The truth is that AMD chips and Intel chips in the same price range compete very well against each other. The only problem that exists is that some people demand to see a winner and a loser. They don't consider competitive scoring.

Just for an example let us use an Olympic analogy. If you go up against three runners and they all score better, you are not going to win a medal. But if you were within a few seconds of their scores for running the mile you actually performed almost as well; you just didn't get the honor of having a medal. The only important question remains: Are the scores competative? What if you won the marathon but lost this mile race by a few seconds. Does that make you a "loser" because the mile race is more popular?

In the CPU "competition" there are no medals. The wins and losses are only in the minds of the enthusiasts. To further use the Olympic analogy: some people put all of the importance on winning the gold medal and consider winning a silver or bronze medal a "loss" even if the competition is very close. In addition they don't consider the importance of various benchmarks. To them winning 10 benchmarks of old applications would mean more than winning a single newer benchmark regardless of what the benchmarks actually test.

But then AMD has an additional handicap anyway because of mindshare: If the scores are EXACTLY the same between brands then Intel would be the "winner" and AMD would be the "loser". AMD must do better than Intel to just to be "equal" and they must do a LOT better to "win" the mindshare competition. Luckily not everyone is shallow enough to only look at this competition for mindshare; many people look at the actual results and make their own determination based on their needs.