Why is Core i7 920 better than Phenom 2 955

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar



the last time i trusted google....
oh well at least i think i know what you mean now, OC genie needs turbo to be off


btw, let me state my reason for buying the i7. "Guaranteed" 4 Ghz with TRUE and D0.

That is one of the reason I went with it, we all know quads isn't that great of an improvement over anything else for gaming, and that only IPC and the clock mattered. So because of the great OCs ppl have been getting with the D0 and previously the C0, I went with it. They reminded me of the Opertron 165 dual cores that can hit 3 GhZ (really good for those) that I missed, so I went with these and got what I wanted.
 
well not 24/7, I shut it off at night.... I use it every day at 4 Ghz under 1.33V

But I need to tweak it more, I want to stay near 1.25 and see what I can do, but that will come later when I got more free time.

edit: def not 1.22.....
 


If I knew how to OC a PII, I could probably get my 720BE on 4 cores above 3.4GHz.

But, I am a gimp noob :lol:
 
afaik, you need a SB710 or similar southbridge (there is a extensive list of what works with what batch on extreme fourms) and simply enable ACC (or some other methods if your mobo is different) and then OC away like normal.
 
Core i7 = intensive games and/or high-end graphics setups, multitasking, video encoding, CAD, photoshop, virtualization and all things related.

Phenom II = games, multitasking on a budget

I'm fairly sure that sums up which one to get and for which reason.
 
Phenom II is suitable for all those tasks as well. It's more about how much you do them and how important it is to you. If you do video editing as a business then the extra $150 for Core i7 can easily be justified. If you crop your home videos twice a year then you can probably get away with a Phenom 😉
 


Oh stop being stupid!

Go back to the assessment screen and you will see that the MAX is 7.9 and NOT 5.9!

Can you not see that... 7.9 is the max... I have RAID 0 on SSD's, 2 4870 X2's Crossfire with a PhII and 8GB RAM top it of with 2 1TB HDD's and I get 6.9.

Further more my point is that he should not be posting those pictures up like that in a forum... He should do that elsewhere say like Facebook or Friendster.

To the GIT that posted those pics.....
Oh yeah don't brag about you rig here.... Its not like its amazing or anything close to it.... Dude my rig is just as good if not even better.... and there are MANY people here that have better rigs than yours or mine for that matter... Take your preaching else where....
 

Windows Vista maxxes out at 5.9. Windows 7 tops out at 7.9. My CPU and memory max out on both (HDD and graphics scores are lower than 7.9 in 7 though).



 
... the only reason the damned video tests are like that is because **gasp** win 7 is DX11 based!!

unless u got some ES (if you do shareeeeeeee, its like brainssssssssssssssssssss) you cannot hit 7.9 on gfx on win 7

granted most system i've seen (incl my self) is limited by HDD score and not the vid (yes even my stinky 7900GS lol) and I got a 1 TB WD B as the sys drive.
 


Ofcourse it's a gimmick, so mugs like you think you have an eight core CPU. There's still only 4 physical cores, so you can't get what it is not, no matter how Intel spin it. Yes you might get somewhat of a boast, but is it worth the high costs? you be the Judge, but I don't think so.
 
^ hyperthreading allows higher core ilitization of the physical cores, allowing them to be loaded more efficiently. Although this does not help in single threaded instances, even might impact negatively but in newer multi-threaded applications, the program can make better use of more threads, thus increasing its speed.
 
Hyperthreading barely impacts the cost, die area, or power consumption of the CPU. It is a great concept, because it can give a 20-30% boost for a few percent more die area (and therefore a few percent more cost per chip).
 


You forgot to mention that Intel copied AMD in regards to the integration of the memory controller.

Presently, there is no software that would bring either platform to its knees.

Speed is no longer an issue. Cost is.

Cost to performance ratio still leans towards AMD. More bang for your buck.

Have fun arguing about it! :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom