Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by Meizuman, Feb 3, 2009.
I find this strange.
Why? i thought that this line up of processors are AMDs answer to Intels high flying core2duos?
No surprise to me. My AMD rigs have always felt smoother in games, no clue why.
One of the "myths" of Phenom. I would really like to see it myself and try two similar systems from AMD / Intel.
Not surprising, the 940 is clocked higher than the Q9550. This is why Intel is finally cutting prices, and they need one more round of price cuts to get prices down to where they need to be.
I would have like to see the E8400 or E8500 thrown in the article though.
weird, but for some reason i always believe that amd platforms are for gaming, but really dunno why
I highly doubt there is any discernible difference between the two. This is just somebody seeing what they want to see or attributing what they want to attribute for whatever reason. There is nearly certainly no noticeable gaming experience difference between a PII and a q9550 at 1680x1050.
interesting indeed. I wonder how the am3 version will fair
Man, you guys should see the thread XS relating to the same article.. talk about " fanboys ".. DANG.
This is why I love TPU. Things don't get out of hand on these forums. The mod's do a great job.
mods do work but the fanboi work harder sometimes
Placebo effect as a result of loving AMD
That aint no lie.
I have to agree - definitely a circular love-fest in that thread with few voices of reason.
I've been an AMD guy since '97 but switched to Intel when it was obvious they were the better choice. It's great that AMD is "back in the game". Competition is great and I'm excited for their success. Coming up with a solution to the "Core 2 Duo" is great but they're a little late to the table.
I don't think you'll find a single review that doesn't end with, "if you have the money, go with the Core i7". The PII just can't compare overall.
My next platform just might be an AMD though. It's cheaper, it performs very well in games and you get bored of going with "the same team" over and over. So "yeah!" for AMD but we should keep it all in perspective.
Well AM3 just adds DDR3 which only increases loading speeds not in game framerates.
If AMD was'nt on the map, not many people could afford high end Intel stuff.
Remember that with this competition, prices are kept low. Same goes with ATI vs Nvidia.
I would buy that the PII games better than a 9550 in some games, but i would attribute this to the Chipset rather than the proc... the 790FX is an awesome chipset.
LOL at the XS guys creaming themselves.
I would spend a bit more for a 790GX. Exact same chipset as 790FX but runs cooler which helps push overclocks a bit further.
I only say chipset because the AMD was smoother in only heavily GPU bound instances... its pretty clear that the proc has nothing to do with Crossfire performance when fully GPU bound and the chipset does. i.e. Crysis and COH at 1900x1200 with 2 AA...
EDIT: the more i read that review the more i think it should be called "CrossfireX: X58 kind of sucks compared to 790FX/GX even when the processors don't".
In my humble opinion, it all comes down to the price. Phenom II is a good cpu and it competes well with most mainstream intel solutions (i7 in my opinion still is not mainstream mostly because of the overall price of the platform, but this will change in the near future). Right now for people building a new system, Phenom II looks like an attractive choice, as many guys allready said in this thread.
P.S. Sorry for my english people, it is not my native spoken language.
i 2nd this sorry to say it intel chipsets may clock higher but clock for clock they suck. look at the old reviews comparing Via PT880 to i865PE PT880 didn't clock as high but beat the PE in everything 200mhz slower
I have no issues on my rig with Cysis(or any game for that matter) at all ...turn it all up and play away smooth as silk
but you're also not running in crossfire (to the drivers you are, but not to the mobo)... the 4870X2 board has its own PLX chip. I think the min framerates in that review are due to the chipset and how it hadles the dual cards. It looks like the 790 can interface to the two cards a molecule faster than the X58.
Not only that but the NB is 750 on a GX. I believe its 650 on an FX. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I still find it hard to recommend the new amd cpus over intel's. I mean let's be honest here, it's only really a big step up vs. the old phenom. The performance per clock is still about 200 MHz behind core2 and 400 MHz behind i7. Just goes to show how worthless the old phenoms were that such a big step up from them still doesn't close the gap. Best just to grab a Q6600 before they sell out for good
Separate names with a comma.