Phenom II 955 Versus Core i7 920: Gaming Value Compared

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a $600 BUDGET Phenom II X4 955 build specifically to run Microsoft Flight Simulator X.Yes a core I7 would be better but try to do it for $600

hec HP585D RETAIL 585W ATX12V Power Supply - Power Cord Included - Retail
AND
HEC 6C60BS Black / Silver Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail
Combo Price: $47.98
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.215519

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor - Retail
AND
ASUS M4A78-E AM2+/AM3 AMD 790GX HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard - RetailCombo Price: $259.99 (and $10 rebate)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.211664

G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10666) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F3-10666CL9D-4GBPK - Retail
Original Price: $69.99
You Save: $5.00
$64.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231188

XFX PVT98WYDFH GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail
Free WOW & COD game with purchase, ends 7/31
Original Price: $134.99
You Save: $6.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150314$128.99

Why this graphics card for FSX? FSX doesn't perform much better with either crossfire or SLI.The Nvidia cards do better than ATI cards and the 9800 GTX+ performs well.Here it is under an older Toms Hardware Chart
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-X-SP2,782.html
Now I am only using one card on a AMD GX motherboard.

Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD6400AAKS 640GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - OEM
$69.99
Free Shipping*
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136218
An older hard drive but one that still rates well and is well liked.You can inset any other choice though

LITE-ON Black 22X DVD+R IDE 22X DVD Writer - Retail
$27.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106327
I could find the Specific DVD burner you had listed at newegg
so I quickly inserted this one.Probably not the best choice but pick another one.

Total Cost for just the hardware (using the stock CPU cooler)
$599.93 - $ 10.00 rebate = $589.93
So this is a under $600 budget AMD Quad Core system specifically to run
Microsoft Flight Simulator X.Sure it won't beat a Intel Core i7 system for FSX but then it should perform well.By the way I saw this chart that showed a Core i7 920 system overclocked by about 50% and the performance in FSX improved by somewhere around a meager 10%.I don't know why this is so because overclocked Core i7 920's seem to get better framerates in
other genre's like first person shooters.Ideally FSX would be better with a Core i7 920 and a NVidia card but at $600 this budget AMD Quad Core Phenom II X4 955 system with the NVidia 9800 GTX+ should perform quite well.I did choose a very cheap case with a very cheap power supply so if on wanted a better case and/or a better quality power supply the cost would be higher unless one guts out an obsolete system for the case,power supply and the DVD burner which would lower the price even more.
 


I don't see how the 4870 could beat a 4890, since the 4890 is an overclocked 4870.

What you may have seen is a variance within the margin of error on a CPU limited title.
For example, you might have seen a 4870 get 34 fps and a 4890 get 33 fps, but that doesn't make the 4870 better. If you repeated runs enough times, eventually the 4890 would equal or beat out the 4870 by a small margin.

As for the cache or size of the hard disk, it's not a huge difference - it's no difference at all. Hard drive cache doesn't manifest a notable effect in game benchmarks. As long as the drives have similar performance, the game engines don't care.
 
cleeve i said the 4870 on some occasions, not on the hole.

and unless the game in total is stored in the memory -on card, ram, it has to be accessed from the harddrive. this is a notable effect.
 
yep sure hangs in there AMD that is...............when you run a3.2GHZ AMD against a 2.66GHZ Intel
the AMD guys bitch but the fact is no matter what you do AMD just can't compete unless you give it a advanage right off like 3.2Ghz ver. 2.66GHZ face if all is even cpu core clock , ram and video cards ..........AMD just doesn't stack up..........OH they claim price.........well corvettes are cheaper than Ferraries.......go figure
if you want performance you pay for it ..........bottom line
I'm just sick of the die hard AMD guys who complain no matter what test you run.........face it guys amd is in the back of the bus and don't seem to have the ass to move to the front..........but quit harassing this guy just because he reports the fact's
 
yep sure hangs in there AMD that is...............when you run a3.2GHZ AMD against a 2.66GHZ Intel
the AMD guys bitch but the fact is no matter what you do AMD just can't compete unless you give it a advanage right off like 3.2Ghz ver. 2.66GHZ face if all is even cpu core clock , ram and video cards ..........AMD just doesn't stack up..........OH they claim price.........well corvettes are cheaper than Ferraries.......go figure
if you want performance you pay for it ..........bottom line
I'm just sick of the die hard AMD guys who complain no matter what test you run.........face it guys amd is in the back of the bus and don't seem to have the ass to move to the front..........but quit harassing this guy just because he reports the fact's
 


Well, the 4870 should be better on no occasions. Having a lower clockspeed than the 4890 is never an advantage.



maybe for some thngs, but not to a game engine. Even performance differences between SSDs, fast Raptors, and regular hard disks are hard to detect in a game, and when performance is affected it's usually minimum FPS, not average.

We're not talking about massive file transfers here, the difference between two regular hard drives with similar speeds is absolutely insignificant as far as game play goes.
 
unless you are playin delta force extreme, most if not all todays games are in the gigabites. so the more onboard memory the better, it is noticable.

for a more complete test i suggest they swap parts. 1st all parts, then 1 at the time to show the fps increase or decrease. and yes it would be a large write up, but this is what they get paid for and this is what is needed.

 
[citation][nom]Naw-yi[/nom]unless you are playin delta force extreme, most if not all todays games are in the gigabites. so the more onboard memory the better[/citation]

Are you still talking about hard drive cache, or are you suggesting larger hard drives give more performance? Either way, it doesn't make any sense. You should google some hard drive reviews.

Hard drive cache is not the same as system RAM. Whoever told you otherwise has mislead you. Even if it was, 16 MB more system RAM isn't going to do diddley squat.

It makes no performance difference in games, dude. Look into it, you're arguing about something you don't know.
 
hi buddy amd beats intel out of water in gaming n overclocking....so does the intel to amd in heat generating noise making and other as annoyances,,,,amd's old dual core were able to compete with intel's higher end core2duo's....thats the bang for buck...intelligent people spend money intelligently....intel's just rubbish for corei7 expensed much more than amd phenom2 x64...but only performed a bit more...and its not that intel is much stronger...in every games requirement theres an amd equivalent which rather performs far better....instead they should have competed it against amd FX series which r really meant for serious gaming....so this review was in the favour of intel to just promote marketing...i dont talk big but i have a budget of around 5000$ for computer i would go with the floor---thats amd and buy dual ATI 4890's
 
Well i had a Phenom II X4 940 OC to 3.6 and i went and bought a core i7 was that a bad idea or do you think it was worth the money and upgrade from the Phenom II ?
 
In my honest opinion, the difference in performance per price that i7 offers, isn't worth it, if you have the money for an i7 system, for gods sake, go with it.


But you can built a Phenom II system, with DDR3 for several hundred dollars less. and as the bench marks had shown, the phenom 2 really starts to shine at the higher resolutions even over the Core i7.


In all reality, they're both great chips, that will hold up under anything.

I mean what do you *really* need the 8 threads for on a core i7? just a couple years ago, nothing was able to really use a Athlon X2, or core 2 duo. Now we have quad core processers, that are faster and more powerful, and what has come out that needs that insane amount of processing power? even transcoding movies, or multi-tasking.

It does seem Tom's hardware is a bit biased towards intel, but that's because intel is the better chip, side by side it is better; no doubt.


But price per performance, the phenom II costs nearly HALF of what the 920 does, but the 920 doesn't give 200 percent performance over the phenom II.

 
They need to use the same GPU for both CPU tests. The difference in GPU power seems to be the edge the Phenom II has over the i7 in many tests.
 
lol this one is a no-brainer.

The i7 wins hands down, not only is their 3.44gig overclock poor but the phenom is running better video cards and a higher clock speed and consistantly looses. I would love to see this benchie done replicating a real gaming i7 system... i7@4 - 4.4 ghz and 2 4890's in crossfire. There would be such a large gap that the amd fanboys would weep. Hence why they give the AMD the handicapp of two better cards etc. Price is price, But why would you buy an inferior technology unless you were misinformed as to its specifications.
 
haha i love how people always say oh if you have the money go with intel.... i went with intel and built a core 17 920, asus p6t mobo, 6gb gskill 1330 ram, gtx 260 + gts 9800 for 700euro. thats cheap.
 
im totally fucked up with my intel core i3 so i wrecked it... pls give me some advice coz im buying a new one. should i try AMD??
 
it's lot of money spent to make this article. I appreciate that TH could made it even to a small corner.

It's very nice on i7 and i think amd is a little less smart by not developing 3-channel memory, and very concerned to the cores, not as balanced like intel do.

Even now, amd still not developing triple channel
However, i am AMD user. Again it's all cause the price
 
My first desktop was an HP AMD XII 445 triple core, 4gb or physical RAM. with an Radeon ATI 6480 1gb DDR3 Ram. I could play any game, but only at the lower resoulutions, plus my power supply is only 250 watts. This tower cost me $499.99 plus tax. Not a bad machine for the price.

My second desktop now is an HP Pavilion Elite HPE icore7, Raid 0 configuration. with 8 gb of DDR3 Physical Ram. An ATI 5770 1gb DDR5 Ram. 460 watts power supply, firewire 400. Big differance with this machine I play any game at maximum resolution. like crysis and crysis 2, Max Payne 3, Diablo 3. etc... This tower Cost $1200.00 plus tax.

So yes you get what you pay for. Intel is superior to AMD in price and speed. It is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Cadillac. No contest. Intel's icore7's are super. AMD is good for people that cannot afford an expensive gaming machine.

webcat62.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom