This still isn't a good test. If you've got the money to buy an SLI mobo and dual video cards, the i7 is for you. If you're looking for a budget gaming system, I think the AMD wins. What you want to look at is a single card system. You can buy a Phenom II X3 for $120 and a 770 mobo for $80. This makes your core components $300 less than the i7. In this situation, if you spend $100 on a 4770 card for your i7 system, you could spend $400 on a 4870 X2 in your AMD system. In this scenario, I imagine the AMD wins easily. In reality, I would just put a 4890 in the AMD system and have a great gaming machine for about $200 less.
- Status
doomtomb
Distinguished
- May 12, 2009
- 823
- 21
- 18,985
[citation][nom]thearm[/nom]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.[/citation]
Those two you mentioned are limitations to comparing different makes, AMD and Intel but they also used different graphics cards throwing the biggest monkey wrench into the equation.
Those two you mentioned are limitations to comparing different makes, AMD and Intel but they also used different graphics cards throwing the biggest monkey wrench into the equation.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]NoCaDrummer[/nom]"we didn't have two of the same model drives on hand." Gentlemen, there's too many variables here! [/citation]
I disagree. Hard drives aren't a huge game performance variable, and we're not talking about standard HD vs. Intel's latest SSD here. These are two standard drives with almost identical benchmark results according to SiSoft Sandra.
It's not going to make a single FPS difference.
I disagree. Hard drives aren't a huge game performance variable, and we're not talking about standard HD vs. Intel's latest SSD here. These are two standard drives with almost identical benchmark results according to SiSoft Sandra.
It's not going to make a single FPS difference.
chaohsiangchen
Distinguished
- Jul 28, 2008
- 479
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]megamanx00[/nom]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.[/citation]
That doesn't matter. Tom's staff chose 790X so that the two systems are at the same budget bin. Once you take AM3 790FX, the price difference is about $50 closer. Besides, you lose at most 5% to 10% performance with 790X.
The problem with Phenom II is that, in addition to branch prediction and deficiency on SSE3, the L3 cache latency is really bad. L3 cache latency on Core i7 is almost half of Phenom II. Higher core speed probably won't make much difference, unless you start to jack up base clock. Most AMD boards out there can take up to 260MHz without mobo modification, and some can go as much as 280MHz. Then you probably need water cooling, Peltier or something better to advance into that range.
The best way for AMD to increase performance on Deneb is to increase NB frequency. That will reduce L3 latency and probably overall memory through put. If they can achieve 2400MHz or even 2600MHz (4800GT/s to 5200GT/s), then the future deneb CPUs might be within 400MHz of IPC efficiency of higher-end Lynnfield. Lower clocked Phenoms will perform equivalent or probably better than Nehalem CPU running at 1.8-2.2GHz range. The new Opteron 138x and 24xx have 2200MHz NB frequency instead of 2000MHz. However, they need to concentrate their design team on Bulldozer and make Orochi into the market faster. We won't be able to see AMD challenging Intel again until late 2010.
That doesn't matter. Tom's staff chose 790X so that the two systems are at the same budget bin. Once you take AM3 790FX, the price difference is about $50 closer. Besides, you lose at most 5% to 10% performance with 790X.
The problem with Phenom II is that, in addition to branch prediction and deficiency on SSE3, the L3 cache latency is really bad. L3 cache latency on Core i7 is almost half of Phenom II. Higher core speed probably won't make much difference, unless you start to jack up base clock. Most AMD boards out there can take up to 260MHz without mobo modification, and some can go as much as 280MHz. Then you probably need water cooling, Peltier or something better to advance into that range.
The best way for AMD to increase performance on Deneb is to increase NB frequency. That will reduce L3 latency and probably overall memory through put. If they can achieve 2400MHz or even 2600MHz (4800GT/s to 5200GT/s), then the future deneb CPUs might be within 400MHz of IPC efficiency of higher-end Lynnfield. Lower clocked Phenoms will perform equivalent or probably better than Nehalem CPU running at 1.8-2.2GHz range. The new Opteron 138x and 24xx have 2200MHz NB frequency instead of 2000MHz. However, they need to concentrate their design team on Bulldozer and make Orochi into the market faster. We won't be able to see AMD challenging Intel again until late 2010.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]...but they also used different graphics cards throwing the biggest monkey wrench into the equation.[/citation]
It's not a monkey wrench dude, it's the entire purpose of this review.
Please read the second page. The point is to see if the money saved on the CPU would prove an advantage when applied to the graphics cards.
If you want to see a straight i7 vs. Phenom II review, look to one of the million Phenom II launch articles out there. We've all seen them, and I wasn't looking to re-invent the wheel.
It's not a monkey wrench dude, it's the entire purpose of this review.
Please read the second page. The point is to see if the money saved on the CPU would prove an advantage when applied to the graphics cards.
If you want to see a straight i7 vs. Phenom II review, look to one of the million Phenom II launch articles out there. We've all seen them, and I wasn't looking to re-invent the wheel.
B-Unit
Distinguished
- Oct 13, 2006
- 1,836
- 1
- 19,810
[citation][nom]rosshalz[/nom]wait... so the core i7 allows, say, using a gtx260 and a HD4770 in multi card format???? or is it just my over-optimistic mind reading the conclusion page??[/citation]
Nope, you read wrong. The X58 boards can do BOTH SLi and Crossfire, but you cant mix nVidia/ATi GPUs.
Nope, you read wrong. The X58 boards can do BOTH SLi and Crossfire, but you cant mix nVidia/ATi GPUs.
People are mentioning that this article concludes the Core i7's "landslide victory" in gaming. Did you look at the 1920 x 1200 gaming benchmark numbers from the PII 955? In most gaming benchmarks under stock CPU conditions, the PII 955 frames per second scores were on par and marignally succeeded the stock Core i7 in performance.
Since 1920 x 1200 is the sweetspot for my gaming, and lesser resolution performance (or pure speed) is inconsequential. It's because of this article I have to seriously evaluate my plans for my Core i7 build.
Since 1920 x 1200 is the sweetspot for my gaming, and lesser resolution performance (or pure speed) is inconsequential. It's because of this article I have to seriously evaluate my plans for my Core i7 build.
Mithrandir95
Distinguished
- Jun 26, 2009
- 6
- 1
- 18,515
Good article, good conclusion. (Much better than last time around).
My take is that frankly Core i7 is awesome, but it's also accordingly priced (read very expensive). At this point there simply isn't much that requires that level of performance. AMD has CPUs at all levels of performance up to the i7 920, and at better system prices than their Intel counterparts. I still recommend AMD for 90% of situations.
My take is that frankly Core i7 is awesome, but it's also accordingly priced (read very expensive). At this point there simply isn't much that requires that level of performance. AMD has CPUs at all levels of performance up to the i7 920, and at better system prices than their Intel counterparts. I still recommend AMD for 90% of situations.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]CypherX[/nom]People are mentioning that this article concludes the Core i7's "landslide victory" in gaming. Did you look at the 1920 x 1200 gaming benchmark numbers from the PII 955? [/citation]
I agree, it does look like folks are glossing over the results. The 1920x1200 achievements are very good for the Phenom II, even beating out the i7 in a few cases. Even when it did lose to the i7, it was still delivering playable frame rates.
I tried to bring that out in the benchmark comments.
Someone spending this much on a gaming rig probably will be accompanying it with a 1920x1200 monitor, so the Phenom II holds it's own quite well as a pure gaming machine as I mention in the conclusion.
Personally, I'd go with i7 because I do a lot more than game on my rig, but if you do nothing but game the Phenom II isn't a bad choice, to be sure.
I agree, it does look like folks are glossing over the results. The 1920x1200 achievements are very good for the Phenom II, even beating out the i7 in a few cases. Even when it did lose to the i7, it was still delivering playable frame rates.
I tried to bring that out in the benchmark comments.
Someone spending this much on a gaming rig probably will be accompanying it with a 1920x1200 monitor, so the Phenom II holds it's own quite well as a pure gaming machine as I mention in the conclusion.
Personally, I'd go with i7 because I do a lot more than game on my rig, but if you do nothing but game the Phenom II isn't a bad choice, to be sure.
Wow I didn't even notice that the i7 was using 4870s and the P2 955 was 4890s until I read all the comments.
Please tell me how this ISN'T a win for the Intel Core i7 920???!?!?! It barely lost (open to opinion as well) with a weak overclock and lesser video cards!
Please tell me how this ISN'T a win for the Intel Core i7 920???!?!?! It barely lost (open to opinion as well) with a weak overclock and lesser video cards!
smithereen
Distinguished
- Oct 4, 2008
- 1,088
- 0
- 19,310
computabug
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2009
- 458
- 0
- 18,780
Once again, Tom has taken Intel's bribe to make Intel appear much more superior...
First of all, the AMD still costs much less than the Intel. Second of all, you don't need such expensive components for AMD. You just wasted all that extra money beefing it up with fancy parts to make Intel look like better value, and used the excuse that you couldn't afford 2x4850x2's with the savings. What, so does that mean that if I go under-budget in my build, I have to throw the remaining money in the trash? Just divide the performance by the cost, Don!
First of all, the AMD still costs much less than the Intel. Second of all, you don't need such expensive components for AMD. You just wasted all that extra money beefing it up with fancy parts to make Intel look like better value, and used the excuse that you couldn't afford 2x4850x2's with the savings. What, so does that mean that if I go under-budget in my build, I have to throw the remaining money in the trash? Just divide the performance by the cost, Don!
I can't help but make the comment, with the money you save buying the AMD system you can buy the games you want to play and install them the same day your build is up and running. If everything in the test is playable then the metric for a gaming PC should become "How many games can I buy when comparing final prices?" This is metric for a lot of people who compare Xbox 360 and PS3. I realize the consoles have the other hurdle "Which console has better exclusives?" and many more but on PC the games available and related metrics are a level playing field.
Another metric is upgrade-ability. AMD in the past few years has shown to be far more willing to make CPUs and Motherboard chipsets that are backward and forward compatible. Intel changed there socket for the i7s so to upgrade you had to spend hundreds of dollars, AMD changed there socket but made it so that an AMD2+ socket could run an AM3 socket saving hundreds of dollars in upgrades for those that bought AM2+ a year ago. This allowed AMD users to hold back on the mobo and RAM upgrade until prices dropped, but they still got a performance boost.
Another metric is upgrade-ability. AMD in the past few years has shown to be far more willing to make CPUs and Motherboard chipsets that are backward and forward compatible. Intel changed there socket for the i7s so to upgrade you had to spend hundreds of dollars, AMD changed there socket but made it so that an AMD2+ socket could run an AM3 socket saving hundreds of dollars in upgrades for those that bought AM2+ a year ago. This allowed AMD users to hold back on the mobo and RAM upgrade until prices dropped, but they still got a performance boost.
erdinger
Distinguished
- Dec 26, 2008
- 342
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]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."[/citation]
WoW you're right it was to early in the morning I must have forgetten what I read. Then no critique to the article from my side! Very good
WoW you're right it was to early in the morning I must have forgetten what I read. Then no critique to the article from my side! Very good
da bahstid
Distinguished
- Oct 10, 2008
- 35
- 0
- 18,530
dirtmountain
Splendid
- Apr 19, 2008
- 3,530
- 0
- 22,860
That's what the regular SBM articles are all about, showing cost/performance benchmarks for specific builds. You can do an AMD PhenomII 940 build with a 780i motherboard and 2 GTX 280s at the $1,300 budget.
if you live anywhere near a Microcenter they are selling the i7 920 for $200 even this month, regularly $220. So if you can get one at that price, there went your price/performance argument for the AMD. At this point all the 920s you see should be D0 as well, as icing on the cake. Just face it, AMD is beat at this price point, move on.
masop
Distinguished
- Feb 14, 2006
- 439
- 0
- 18,780
The DFI board is now $230 at the egg making it $645 for the i7 setup. The Asus board is $180 accordingly, making the amd build $550 as there was a typo on the price for the mememory for the amd build. It's amazing how the prices fluctuate from day to day. After all the comments in all the latest articles related to phenom ii vs core i7, I've decided to go with a 920 for my next build this summer or fall. It's been almost 15 years since I had an intel setup.
I have one for everybody -- BOTTLENECK!
Yes, at 1920x1200 they break about even. Why? Because the 955 is good at that resolution? No. Because at that resolution the performance becomes restricted not by the CPU but the video cards, and the 4890s are able to edge out. On smaller resolutions on CPU dependant games it is clear that the i7 RIPS the 955 apart.
That said, I am not saying the i7 is the best thing to buy out there. Certainly not. Although I can probably be allocated to the Intel fanboy club, i think buying the 550BE for $99 and free shipping and unlocking all 4 cores with a $69 Gigabyte mobo and dumping some DDR2 1066 with super tight timings will save you a BOATFULL of money compared to an i7 platform and chances are you will NOT have a measurable disadvantage to the i7 platform, because most games are GPU restricted anyway, ram doesn't matter, as long as you have 4G of it.
Somebody said that that pricepoint for a system allows dumping i7 and favors Intel and I stand behind that. Because I can make a AMD system that will be significantly cheaper than the i7 system and there won't be a significant drop in performance, and that would dictate totally opposite conclusion.
SO, otmshardware is not saying anything wrong, but depending on what facts you chose to present you can derive different conclusions.
I mean, 550BE unclocked + low end mobo costs $ shipped. In newegg! i7 CPU + mobo platform will be $420+. That's two and a half times more. I want to hear one persont to tell me that there will be a difference in performance to compensate for that!!!, especially givent that the 550 will work @ 3.1 Ghz without OC.
Yes, at 1920x1200 they break about even. Why? Because the 955 is good at that resolution? No. Because at that resolution the performance becomes restricted not by the CPU but the video cards, and the 4890s are able to edge out. On smaller resolutions on CPU dependant games it is clear that the i7 RIPS the 955 apart.
That said, I am not saying the i7 is the best thing to buy out there. Certainly not. Although I can probably be allocated to the Intel fanboy club, i think buying the 550BE for $99 and free shipping and unlocking all 4 cores with a $69 Gigabyte mobo and dumping some DDR2 1066 with super tight timings will save you a BOATFULL of money compared to an i7 platform and chances are you will NOT have a measurable disadvantage to the i7 platform, because most games are GPU restricted anyway, ram doesn't matter, as long as you have 4G of it.
Somebody said that that pricepoint for a system allows dumping i7 and favors Intel and I stand behind that. Because I can make a AMD system that will be significantly cheaper than the i7 system and there won't be a significant drop in performance, and that would dictate totally opposite conclusion.
SO, otmshardware is not saying anything wrong, but depending on what facts you chose to present you can derive different conclusions.
I mean, 550BE unclocked + low end mobo costs $ shipped. In newegg! i7 CPU + mobo platform will be $420+. That's two and a half times more. I want to hear one persont to tell me that there will be a difference in performance to compensate for that!!!, especially givent that the 550 will work @ 3.1 Ghz without OC.
Sorry, the i7 platform would cost $480+ vs $169$ for the 5550BE. I ain't no matematician, but off the top of my head that looks awfully close to three times as much.
TH, I CHALLENGE YOU TO MAKE A TEST OF THAT $169$ platform I mentioned and compare it vs the i7 platform. Do a test with ONE 4870, and then a separate test with TWO, so we can see the shift of bottlenecking.
Thanks. Sorry for my frequent caps.
TH, I CHALLENGE YOU TO MAKE A TEST OF THAT $169$ platform I mentioned and compare it vs the i7 platform. Do a test with ONE 4870, and then a separate test with TWO, so we can see the shift of bottlenecking.
Thanks. Sorry for my frequent caps.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]computabug[/nom]Once again, Tom has taken Intel's bribe to make Intel appear much more superior...[/citation]
That just doesn't make any sense. Have you read the article?
The phenom II performed excellently, especially at 1920x1200.
As a gaming rig, the tests show it's just as good as the i7. I said that. In each game benchmark I mentioned it if the 955 did well, and since 1920x1200 is the resolution most likely paired with these rigs, I say plain and simple in the conclusion that "Across all of the games and all of the resolutions we tested, the Phenom II system delivered frame rates just as playable as the Core i7 system."
Then - after that - I said:
"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."
How could you possibly spin that to equal an intel bribe? I have a feeling that no matter what I did, you'd have come up with the same post.
You've pre-decided the site is biased, friend, and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.
That just doesn't make any sense. Have you read the article?
The phenom II performed excellently, especially at 1920x1200.
As a gaming rig, the tests show it's just as good as the i7. I said that. In each game benchmark I mentioned it if the 955 did well, and since 1920x1200 is the resolution most likely paired with these rigs, I say plain and simple in the conclusion that "Across all of the games and all of the resolutions we tested, the Phenom II system delivered frame rates just as playable as the Core i7 system."
Then - after that - I said:
"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."
How could you possibly spin that to equal an intel bribe? I have a feeling that no matter what I did, you'd have come up with the same post.
You've pre-decided the site is biased, friend, and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question 13420H vs 120u Laptop (and durability of Lenovo V15 G4 vs. Asus Vivobook)
- Started by ygli
- Replies: 2
-
Question Switching GPU from GTX 1070 to RTX 5070 TI – Samsung S90C TV No Longer Works
- Started by eMsit91
- Replies: 1
-
Question Should I swap my RX 6800 Phantom for a 325 USD Used RX 6900 XT (Fb Marketplace)?
- Started by Silicon Bargain Hunter
- Replies: 2
-
Question Intent-Based Optimization Node — Boosting Performance Without Overclocking
- Started by DRMIOmega
- Replies: 10
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram