Phenom II (Vs. i7 and C2Q) gaming benchmarks

[DRDNA]

I didn't find it surprising. For multithreaded things that can't use 8 cores, the HT actually makes it slower. It ends up mixing together Virtual cores with physical ones, due to the way Windows assigns the cores. Turn off HT, and the results are very different.

Not entirely false, but there's no actual virtual core. It's the extra ALU Intel thinks is really needed. With it off, you might actually get the same performance results. The thing is that, if Windows assigns 4 ALU's from two cores instead of one from each one, you can get a bottleneck. According to Intel, the redesign of HT with backside fixed that issue.

I can see NO differance in my 3DM05 and 06 scores nore in gaming with HT disabled...NONE ....So maybe in some cases but not in all cases does disabling HT help ...I play all the newest NFS from MW on...Farcry2... Halo2....GRID...and a bunch more.

 

[Dan2312]

Im gonna not even take them graphs into account. no mention of what motherboards are used, btw i only read the 1st page,

i also am a Custom PC mag subscriber and their own benchmarks show different results, that the phenom ii is no quicker than a Q6600. It gets spanked by the I7.

 

[spearman914]

I can see NO differance in my 3DM05 and 06 scores nore in gaming with HT disabled...NONE ....So maybe in some cases but not in all cases does disabling HT help ...I play all the newest NFS from MW on...Farcry2... Halo2....GRID...and a bunch more.

It's probably FC2/3Dm 06 05 already supports 4 cores, so HT disabled won't make a difference. As if it only supports 2 cores then HT "WILL" make a difference.

 

[kid41212003]

HT disable.

HT enable.

 

[trickson]

So the i7 has HT ? I did not know this as I thought that Intel did away with hyper threading .
I know mine doesn't support it .

 

[MrHydes]

well at list those tests could show resolution, and configuration settings, because i was

wondering how come a 940 beat a i7920 on Warhead, that's only possible

on very low res i think. Never seen such thing before.

The thing that bodders me the most is that i bet those tests were with +AM2

wich is DDR2 vs X58 (only DDR3)

cheers

 

[n-ster]

bumping a 3 month old thread? wth?

 

[MrHydes]

bumping a 3 month old thread? wth?

so what? Phenom II still is on Review and on chart's so...

 

[n-ster]

This review isn't fair anyways... this is already much better

I'll let you find out what is bad about this review

 

[MrHydes]

I think it is a preview not a proper review.

It definitely wan't an offical review, if you want real results search google for the new reviews since release.

we were discussing this results in another forum, and i've posted because the bench seemed

really odd to me... of course i've seen newer stuff, but thanks anyways

 

[iandh]

This review isn't fair anyways... this is already much better

I'll let you find out what is bad about this review

That review shows PII getting an ass whooping in number crunching and synthetic benches, which we all know it loses horribly to i7...

The OP review of this thread was real world gaming and that is a whole different story.

 

[n-ster]

That review shows PII getting an ass whooping in number crunching and synthetic benches, which we all know it loses horribly to i7...

The OP review of this thread was real world gaming and that is a whole different story.

Yea I know xD

BUT i7 does NOT get beat in gaming by the PII... and beats PII in multi-GPU setups... agree?

Oh and i7 is made to be OCed... so with both i7 920 and PII OCed, even with HT off, i7 probably beats PII... or at least is on par for single-GPU gaming...

For gaming I would suggest a PIIx3

 

[demonkevy666]

Im gonna not even take them graphs into account. no mention of what motherboards are used, btw i only read the 1st page,

i also am a Custom PC mag subscriber and their own benchmarks show different results, that the phenom ii is no quicker than a Q6600. It gets spanked by the I7.

Q6600 8mbs of cache at 2.4ghz Phenom ii 6mbs of L3 cache at 1.8ghz
hit rates on L3 are higher per-clock then L2 there are lot of misses and inter core communication on L2 in core 2 duo design.

bump that phenom to to 2.4ghz on Nb speed, you'll be above Q6600 and bump up to 28-3.0ghz you should be above penryn.

 

[demonkevy666]

Not entirely false, but there's no actual virtual core. It's the extra ALU Intel thinks is really needed. With it off, you might actually get the same performance results. The thing is that, if Windows assigns 4 ALU's from two cores instead of one from each one, you can get a bottleneck. According to Intel, the redesign of HT with backside fixed that issue.

extra ALU's that would imply that intel can't fit anymore IPC to the cores they have as in the L1 cache is half the size of AMD's L1 cache. Perhaps this why AMD is still doing well in hi resolution still and not quite as well in multi gpu. It maybe more ALU's but the data pool is still small, and big GPU's like data. this won't work in multi gpu because everything wants some data from the same core so I7 has the extra data waiting for it. So this my hypothesis on why phenom II is good on single gpu at hi res and I7 better a multi GPU.

 

[iandh]

Yea I know xD

BUT i7 does NOT get beat in gaming by the PII... and beats PII in multi-GPU setups... agree?

Oh and i7 is made to be OCed... so with both i7 920 and PII OCed, even with HT off, i7 probably beats PII... or at least is on par for single-GPU gaming...

For gaming I would suggest a PIIx3

Yes I definitely agree. I have seen PII hold its own very well even up to CF/SLI setups, but once you have 3-4 GPU's PII doesn't stand a chance against i7.

One would have to be completely daft not to consider the PII 720 BE @ $136 as THE BEST deal for gaming at this point in time.

I find that AMD/Intel i7 are superior for gaming in some cases because of their integrated memory controllers, and this was confirmed by a couple controversial Anandtech reviews declaring Phenom II "smoother" than intel 775 setups in some gaming situations. They outright said they preferred the PII 940 over Q9550 due to its smoothness.

FYI I own both AMD and Intel rigs, and have friends and family members at both companies.

Q6600 8mbs of cache at 2.4ghz Phenom ii 6mbs of L3 cache at 1.8ghz
hit rates on L3 are higher per-clock then L2 there are lot of misses and inter core communication on L2 in core 2 duo design.

bump that phenom to to 2.4ghz on Nb speed, you'll be above Q6600 and bump up to 28-3.0ghz you should be above penryn.

The Phenom II spanks the living crap out of Q6600 at gaming, PERIOD. That post you quoted was closed-minded fanboyish BS. I own a Q6600 and Phenom II's and have thoroughly played them both in nearly every top title, so would say I have pretty good first hand experience to make this judgement.

I now use my Q6600 for encoding only.

 

[Binge]

Please give it a rest? This thread was dead months ago. Post #105 01-26-2009, 11:16 PM

::EDIT:: In addition this topic is as boring and unpleasant as smegma.

 

[iandh]

Please give it a rest? This thread was dead months ago. Post #105 01-26-2009, 11:16 PM

Yes, I learned to read numbers somewhere around 25 years ago. I have gotten pretty good at it by now.

The only person to complain to is the person who performed the thread necromancy.


I'd be happy to start a new thread to continue the conversation I am currently having, so you won't have to be bothered by those pesky numbers up there, just LMK.

 

[Darren]

iandh,

When everyone is bashing AMD, everyone is ok for this "old thread" to go ahead.
The second you defend AMD its "this thread was dead months ago"

 

[Binge]

Look I don't have to make an excuse as to why I'm commenting now instead of when it started to happen. If you want a reason I'll tell you, but seriously I was a part of this thread when it started and it is as stupid now as it was then. I'd be happy to comment again in some other thread you start about how stupid this is. We've moved on. People are now doing comparisons and talking about the pros and cons of each system in a more educated manner.

 

[iandh]

Look I don't have to make an excuse as to why I'm commenting now instead of when it started to happen. If you want a reason I'll tell you, but seriously I was a part of this thread when it started and it is as stupid now as it was then. I'd be happy to comment again in some other thread you start about how stupid this is. We've moved on. People are now doing comparisons and talking about the pros and cons of each system in a more educated manner.

I've definintely read some stupid in this thread, along with every similar thread that included these particular benchmarks on every forum that I frequent.

I must say, as long as it stays friendly, i7 vs. 775 vs. PII in gaming is a VERY legitimate and interesting discussion, especially if all involved have experience with the systems in question.


I'll just say this- graphs don't tell the whole story when you're sitting in front of the machine and actually playing. I don't know how much more "educated" you can get than that... I will say NOT by reading a bunch of graphs.

 

[Binge]

I can say I've experienced the same thing with different graphics cards. Small details that were not included in any review, and I do agree that a phenom II will handle games better than a Q6600, and I think better than any 775 because of their memory I/O. Because they don't rely on the FSB they are a much better option. Games love memory bandwidth. You can't quite describe the nuances of each system with a graph, and I say that is even more of a reason to say these threads are completely pointless. Too many of the people in this thread are preachers and there is a lack of individuals asking any questions, so why preach to a preacher? That back and forth is a fight then and that's all it is. L8r d00d

 

[Sonido]

That review shows PII getting an ass whooping in number crunching and synthetic benches, which we all know it loses horribly to i7...

The OP review of this thread was real world gaming and that is a whole different story.

Excatly.

This review isn't fair anyways... this is already much better

I'll let you find out what is bad about this review

Read quote above. The main thing you guys are missing is that the 940 (and 945) is running on HT 3.0. Imagine it running on HT 3.1 w/ DDR3. The amount of information, bi-directionaly, should be close to what i7 is giving. Of course, AM3 will not have tri-channel memory, but ATM, it seems to be a gimmick than something worth having.

Look I don't have to make an excuse as to why I'm commenting now instead of when it started to happen. If you want a reason I'll tell you, but seriously I was a part of this thread when it started and it is as stupid now as it was then. I'd be happy to comment again in some other thread you start about how stupid this is. We've moved on. People are now doing comparisons and talking about the pros and cons of each system in a more educated manner.

Binge, if you don't like this thread or the discussion being had here, skip it. No one is forcing you to click the link, nor is anyone inviting you to post a reply. You always seem to have a negative, holier-than-thou type of attitude. I have nothing against you, but please take it easy. I thought you were a nice guy .

 

[Binge]

By the same token, if you don't like what I say you shouldn't comment on it either eh?

 

[The_Real_DeaL31]

u need 3 sticks of ddr3 ram to run triple channel right, what would happen with only two dimms would dual channel still be enabled

 

[Binge]

You need 3 sticks of DDR3 for triple channel. Two sticks would run in dual channel. If you have any more questions about an i7 system you might want to try asking here:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=76464