- Status
The article is good, but there a point here.
Why you don't use the same amount of money? And spend more in one?
Think would be better if you spend the same, and see what people can get whit that amount of money.
Why you don't use the same amount of money? And spend more in one?
Think would be better if you spend the same, and see what people can get whit that amount of money.
doomtomb
Distinguished
- May 12, 2009
- 819
- 17
- 18,985
[citation][nom]Miharu[/nom]I don't think we can compare an AMD 4890 card in a AMD Phenom PC and an Geforce 260s with a Intel i7, telling AMD win in gaming ?!?If you can't use the same video card and just change mb/CPU... it's not an benchmark for compare "Phenom II 955 Versus Core i7 920: Gaming Value Compared".i7 with 4890i7 with 260VSPhenon II with 4890Phenon II with 260and you compare the cost at then end (in %).The conclusion is... this is not a rational benchmark, someone need to redo it with rational benchmark.[/citation]
Agree. While I understand why you are doing different graphics cards, to meet the same price point with different priced processors, you are simply comparing apples to oranges. Different processor, different motherboards, different graphics card. One can hardly make an informed conclusion from these numbers.
Agree. While I understand why you are doing different graphics cards, to meet the same price point with different priced processors, you are simply comparing apples to oranges. Different processor, different motherboards, different graphics card. One can hardly make an informed conclusion from these numbers.
[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]Agree. While I understand why you are doing different graphics cards, to meet the same price point with different priced processors, you are simply comparing apples to oranges. Different processor, different motherboards, different graphics card. One can hardly make an informed conclusion from these numbers.[/citation]
Still, you take the best motherboard that AMD will work with and the best motherboard an Intel processor will work with and you compaire them. That's a legit benchmark considering the different standards.
Still, you take the best motherboard that AMD will work with and the best motherboard an Intel processor will work with and you compaire them. That's a legit benchmark considering the different standards.
It would have been more telling had they not gotten the 4890s and compared the 260s in the Core i7 to a pair of 275s in the Phenom II setup. The 275s spank the 260s, and the price would have been available, especially if they'd gone with the DDR2 setup and an SLI board. Poor planning on this review.
I'm a big fan of the i7 platform, but I think that even the AMD guys will agree that there wasn't ever a question about the 920 dominating the $250-$300(and beyond) price point. I think it'd be a good idea to show some more mainstream price points where the competition really is.
For what it is, it's a well written article, Don. I think you did a great job comparing the closest offering to the i7 920 that AMD has to offer, I think a lot of people might want to see a $60-$160 AMD vs Intel processor shootout, *THAT* would be a great read. Keep it up
For what it is, it's a well written article, Don. I think you did a great job comparing the closest offering to the i7 920 that AMD has to offer, I think a lot of people might want to see a $60-$160 AMD vs Intel processor shootout, *THAT* would be a great read. Keep it up
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]erdinger[/nom]Whats if you have to make compromises in you I7 build just for the sake of having an I7? I think that's were the Phenom II shows its strength.[/citation]
That's exactly what I said in the conclusion, erdinger:
"Does this mean we recommend staying away from AMD CPUs? Not at all. But AMD's offerings shine below the Core i7's price segment, especially when budgetary constraints mean that buying a Core i7 requires sacrificing a balanced graphics card. We can build a killer Phenom II system for hundreds of dollars less than a Core i7 if we go with an AM2+/DDR2 Phenom II or the Phenom II X3. Also, even more money can be saved if you're willing to settle for a motherboard with one of AMD's more value-oriented chipsets. If this kind of low-cost system is overclocked, we should see gaming results very similar to the ones we saw in our Phenom II X4 955 tests today.
This is where the AMD option makes the most sense: not by going toe-to-toe against the Core i7 at higher prices, but by offering similar gaming utility at a much lower cost. This is also where AMD pulls a rabbit out of its hat, by serving up an alternative for budget gamers who want to build a cost-effective gaming rig."
That's exactly what I said in the conclusion, erdinger:
"Does this mean we recommend staying away from AMD CPUs? Not at all. But AMD's offerings shine below the Core i7's price segment, especially when budgetary constraints mean that buying a Core i7 requires sacrificing a balanced graphics card. We can build a killer Phenom II system for hundreds of dollars less than a Core i7 if we go with an AM2+/DDR2 Phenom II or the Phenom II X3. Also, even more money can be saved if you're willing to settle for a motherboard with one of AMD's more value-oriented chipsets. If this kind of low-cost system is overclocked, we should see gaming results very similar to the ones we saw in our Phenom II X4 955 tests today.
This is where the AMD option makes the most sense: not by going toe-to-toe against the Core i7 at higher prices, but by offering similar gaming utility at a much lower cost. This is also where AMD pulls a rabbit out of its hat, by serving up an alternative for budget gamers who want to build a cost-effective gaming rig."
geofelt
Titan
- Oct 9, 2006
- 55,556
- 4,627
- 174,240
The price comparison shows $95 for 6gb of ram on the i7 system, and $65 for the same ram (is it 4gb or 6gb?)on the amd system. Yet, the benchmark setup shows each system with the same 6gb of ram being tested. Since the mobo prices are the same, the delta comes down to $35 for the difference in cpu costs.
Does that $35 let you upgrade from two 4870 cards to two 4890 cards? I think not. That would mean that the 4870-4890 delta would have to be $18 per card.
Still, it is a good review in that it shows that two high end systems perform comparably well when the cost is equalized. It seems that you get pretty much what you pay for.
This was billed as a comparison of i7 vs phenom, though, so the vga cards used should have both been the 4890. I doubt that a price delta of $35 would bother anyone considering a high end system such as these.
I was surprised at how much difference there was because of cpu power. Normally, with a single card, a better vga card is most important. It seems that with dual high end cards and lower resolutions the cpu can become the limiting factor.
On that note, it seems that the i7-920 should be the cpu of choice with a 2 x 4870 class video configuration. That does not even count the possibility that the i7 can OC even higher than what was done for the test.
Does that $35 let you upgrade from two 4870 cards to two 4890 cards? I think not. That would mean that the 4870-4890 delta would have to be $18 per card.
Still, it is a good review in that it shows that two high end systems perform comparably well when the cost is equalized. It seems that you get pretty much what you pay for.
This was billed as a comparison of i7 vs phenom, though, so the vga cards used should have both been the 4890. I doubt that a price delta of $35 would bother anyone considering a high end system such as these.
I was surprised at how much difference there was because of cpu power. Normally, with a single card, a better vga card is most important. It seems that with dual high end cards and lower resolutions the cpu can become the limiting factor.
On that note, it seems that the i7-920 should be the cpu of choice with a 2 x 4870 class video configuration. That does not even count the possibility that the i7 can OC even higher than what was done for the test.
warlordsagan
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2008
- 26
- 0
- 18,530
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]geofelt[/nom]The price comparison shows $95 for 6gb of ram on the i7 system, and $65 for the same ram (is it 4gb or 6gb?)on the amd system. Yet, the benchmark setup shows each system with the same 6gb of ram being tested.[/citation]
It's the same type of RAM, but the Phenom II uses 2x2 GB sticks for dual channel, and the i7 uses 3x 2GB sticks for triple channel.
It's the same type of RAM, but the Phenom II uses 2x2 GB sticks for dual channel, and the i7 uses 3x 2GB sticks for triple channel.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]lolwuut[/nom]...I think a lot of people might want to see a $60-$160 AMD vs Intel processor shootout, *THAT* would be a great read. Keep it up[/citation]
This might be the direction we're heading in for our next System Builder Marathon, I'll keep you guys posted.
This might be the direction we're heading in for our next System Builder Marathon, I'll keep you guys posted.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]pulasky[/nom]...why http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 60-12.htmlvshttp://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 350-7.htmlwhat the hell, one single 4870 is faster than 2 4870 or 2 4890 (it seems that crossX do not work in any game tested) some explication is more than welcome.[/citation]
That is indeed strange.
Out of the gate, I'd guess that prototoype engine isn't a fan of CrossFore, but I'll do a quick test of one 4890 vs. two 4890's in a single system and get an 'explication' for you. 😉
That is indeed strange.
Out of the gate, I'd guess that prototoype engine isn't a fan of CrossFore, but I'll do a quick test of one 4890 vs. two 4890's in a single system and get an 'explication' for you. 😉
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
First, I think you guys are confused; in these benchmarks we're comparing two 4870's vs. 4890's, *not* GTX 260s. Check the test system specs.
Secondly, there's no way to compare the Phenom II vs. the i7 unless you use different motherboards.
I think the point of this article might have escaped you; it was put together not see if the Phenom II could keep up to the i7 if the money saved went towards the graphics subsystem. If we used the same graphics cards we wouldn't have really been able to test that.
freak77power
Distinguished
- Mar 4, 2009
- 36
- 0
- 18,530
i7 is way to go. i920 D0 is a monster, especially overclocked. For $75 difference over Phenom II i tell you, It's hell of worth it. Also 1366 socket will support 6 and 8 core i7 and on top of that AMD solution does not support SLI, with x58 chipset you can run Crossfire and SLI. That's another reason to go for i7.
Kithzaru
Distinguished
- Apr 23, 2009
- 383
- 0
- 18,790
I have to admit, I was hoping that the Phenom would hang a little better, though like it was stated by another poster, if you purchase a less expensive processor you have to assume that it will perform less as well.
I would like to see however Toms take a set amount of cash (enough for the i7 setup) and do a number of CPU's and GPU's all in the same article. Like what was said before... take a 720be, OC the crap out of it, put in a pair of matching cards and see how well the 600$$ hangs with the big boys.
More things to compare is always better in my mind.
I would like to see however Toms take a set amount of cash (enough for the i7 setup) and do a number of CPU's and GPU's all in the same article. Like what was said before... take a 720be, OC the crap out of it, put in a pair of matching cards and see how well the 600$$ hangs with the big boys.
More things to compare is always better in my mind.
megamanx00
Splendid
- Sep 3, 2008
- 8,216
- 3
- 31,465
I agree with the conclusion of this article. I still wonder why the gaming dragon preformed so much lower though. There really shouldn't be such a discrepancy between the 790X and 790FX boards as far as performance. Anyway, AMD is a great value on the low-mid end, but once you start wanting to go high end, the i7 is the obvious choice for now.
I thought the overclock for the PII was a little mild (only 3.7GHz), but then I suppose the overclock for the i7 was also rather mild. I would like to see AMD deliver on their previous promise to provide PIIs produced with high-κ dielectric for increased clock speeds and overclocking. They need to do something or LGA 1156 parts will eat away AMDs mid range segment.
I thought the overclock for the PII was a little mild (only 3.7GHz), but then I suppose the overclock for the i7 was also rather mild. I would like to see AMD deliver on their previous promise to provide PIIs produced with high-κ dielectric for increased clock speeds and overclocking. They need to do something or LGA 1156 parts will eat away AMDs mid range segment.
NoCaDrummer
Distinguished
- Aug 2, 2008
- 104
- 0
- 18,680
"we didn't have two of the same model drives on hand."
Gentlemen, there's too many variables here! Different CPUs and motherboards are inevitable, since the chipsets are incompatible. But for goodness sakes, you should be able to match the amount/brand/speed of memory, video cards, and the disk drives.
Heck, I find it hard to believe that Tom's can't afford to buy a second drive. Or at least use the SAME drive! Perhaps there's a minimal difference, but minimize the known differences to have a valid comparison.
If you want to up the stakes (e.g. overclocking, using 3 memory devices vs. 2, etc.) go ahead. Put it in the charts, if you like. The more information, the better. But if you're comparing two higher-end CPUs, then make the primary comparison as much alike as possible. Some of us would like to see how OUR real-world comparisons would be.
Gentlemen, there's too many variables here! Different CPUs and motherboards are inevitable, since the chipsets are incompatible. But for goodness sakes, you should be able to match the amount/brand/speed of memory, video cards, and the disk drives.
Heck, I find it hard to believe that Tom's can't afford to buy a second drive. Or at least use the SAME drive! Perhaps there's a minimal difference, but minimize the known differences to have a valid comparison.
If you want to up the stakes (e.g. overclocking, using 3 memory devices vs. 2, etc.) go ahead. Put it in the charts, if you like. The more information, the better. But if you're comparing two higher-end CPUs, then make the primary comparison as much alike as possible. Some of us would like to see how OUR real-world comparisons would be.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News UserBenchmark bashes AMD GPUs and claims they lack real-world performance- Started by Admin
- Replies: 123
-
Review AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Review: Stunning gaming performance meets top-tier productivity
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 69
-
-
-
Review AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT and RX 9070 review: An excellent value, if supply is good
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 167
-
News We need your help to shape the future of Tom’s Hardware
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 97
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram