Just don't get it... if i7 965EE so fast, then why AMD 940...

[cm123]

Ok, will I do get that many games are GPU bound, however then why see benchmarks at low crappy res and the i7 965EE eating the AMD Pii 940 for lunch - would that lead not hold then when turn up the res???

I see reviews when as example going to 1920x1200 with games like Far Cry2, Crysis WarHead, Fear2, CoD 4 and WaW with AMD pii 940 beating it out in most or all cases (in some reviews also with Intel system running more memory, 2GB VS 3GB).

Couple of links below as example to reviews doing gaming benches at higher res or normal for many people showing just that.


So 2 part ? - 1 why then if for gaming even bother blowing huge cash (as I did) on Intel i7 965EE when AMD Pii 940 is faster in gaming - 2 why???, so what changes so much so that AMD at 640 or 800 res in benchmarks no beats Intel, yet in real every day res for many it does?

I guess also, with the total bandwidth still with HyperTransport being pretty good on AMD side of things, does that play a part, system loaded up with highend graphic cards, audio and so on, then all the data transfer on the bus load Intel system up or what?


Click HERE


and


Click HERE

Also (this is the edit) from legionhardware (link below)

Far Cry 2 has proven to be the most CPU dependent game of the bunch, offering substantial performance gains when paired with an extreme processor. Amazingly the Phenom II X4 940 was in fact the fastest processor tested here rendering 63fps, while the Phenom II X4 920 matched the Core i7 965 Extreme Edition with 62fps. This is a stellar result for AMD, and the Phenom II X4 920 proved to be 17% faster than the old Phenom X4 9950.

Click HERE

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

The higher the resoultion, the more GPU dependent the game becomes. BTW, Intel doesn't use a front side bus any more.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: cm123
Ok, will I do get that many games are GPU bound, however then why see benchmarks at low crappy res and the i7 965EE eating the AMD Pii 940 for lunch - would that lead not hold then when turn up the res???

I see reviews when as example going to 1920x1200 with games like Far Cry2, Crysis WarHead, Fear2, CoD 4 and WaW with AMD pii 940 beating it out in most or all cases.

Couple of links below as example to reviews doing gaming benches at higher res or normal for many people showing just that.


So 2 part ? - 1 why then if for gaming even bother blowing huge cash (as I did) on Intel i7 965EE when AMD Pii 940 is faster in gaming - 2 why???, so what changes so much so that AMD at 640 or 800 res in benchmarks no beats Intel, yet in real every day res for many it does?

I guess also, with the total bandwidth still with HyperTransport being pretty good on AMD side of things, does that play a part, system loaded up with highend graphic cards, audio and so on, then all the data transfer on the bus load Intel system up or what?


Click HERE


and


Click HERE

Gaming benchmarks, for the purpose of CPU reviews, are done at low res so the video card's influence is minimized.

The higher-res benchmarks you linked to do demonstrate that the GPU is saturated. In some cases, where AMD has a 1 or 2 fps lead, that can be attributed to acceptable variation - no game-based benchmark is guaranteed to be exactly the same on every run.

Prior to Core i7's release, word on the Web indicated - and Intel admitted - that there wouldn't be a big boost for gaming, vs C2Q.

Finally, almost everyone agrees that the best "value" for most PC's are C2Q's and PhII's. You pay a hefty price to get those extra few % points with Core i7. However, the anticipation is that future apps will better exploit the Core i7's advantages.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
The higher the resoultion, the more GPU dependent the game becomes. BTW, Intel doesn't use a front side bus any more.

never said they did, however they just as all computers have Processor-to-System Bandwidth and AMD systems still are much higher (25.6GB vs 37GB)...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Review sites use really low resolution to minimize any impact of the GPU holding back the scores, to isolate the CPU. Personally, I don't get why so many people put much if any stock in 800x600 low res benches. To me that's like buying based on PCMark or 3DMark score... who cares? Real world resolutions, while the GPU limitation may be present, gives a better idea of how a platform performs. Besides the CPU's from AMD and Intel, they also make chipsets and for a long time had very different ways of getting data to and from the CPU. Not to mention differences in chipsets.

I'm not saying there is no place for low res benches, but they should be shown side by side with real world gaming benches I think.

 

[cm123]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Review sites use really low resolution to minimize any impact of the GPU holding back the scores, to isolate the CPU. Personally, I don't get why so many people put much if any stock in 800x600 low res benches. To me that's like buying based on PCMark or 3DMark score... who cares? Real world resolutions, while the GPU limitation may be present, gives a better idea of how a platform performs. Besides the CPU's from AMD and Intel, they also make chipsets and for a long time had very different ways of getting data to and from the CPU. Not to mention differences in chipsets.

I'm not saying there is no place for low res benches, but they should be shown side by side with real world gaming benches I think.

Exactly, I agree... I think it just might be more about the platform than the cpu in many cases too...

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The legitreviews benchmarks uses the Core i7 920 and the Phenom 940 only "beats" the Core i7 965 in the techspot review in FC2.

 

[veri745]

It's not "beating" the i7 at high resolutions, it's more or less tied with it. The reason for this is that at high resolutions, the GPU is the framerate bottleneck, and the processor matters less and less.

 

[Idontcare]

Basically the CPU is dead. Yes, that processor you see advertised everywhere from Intel. Its run out of steam.

 

[Rick James]

http://i234.photobucket.com/al...ld_yorkfield_bloom.png

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Basically the CPU is dead. Yes, that processor you see advertised everywhere from Intel. Its run out of steam.

lol

 

[RMSe17]

Wow.. after seeing these benchmarks I am strongly considering getting a C2Q or maybe even a Phenom 2. I was all set on getting the i7 920, been waiting for D0, but now I wonder.. why pay more $$ for equal or lower performance in games? At higher heat levels too... Sure i7 can RAR stuff faster than anything on the planet, but when it comes down to it, I play games more than run the installations for them... My world got turned upside down. thanks

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: RMSe17
Wow.. after seeing these benchmarks I am strongly considering getting a C2Q or maybe even a Phenom 2. I was all set on getting the i7 920, been waiting for D0, but now I wonder.. why pay more $$ for equal or lower performance in games? At higher heat levels too... Sure i7 can RAR stuff faster than anything on the planet, but when it comes down to it, I play games more than run the installations for them... My world got turned upside down. thanks

Why get a quad for gaming at all?

 

[Tempered81]

To the op:

good question. certainly makes a good point. a 4ghz e8400 is probably faster than both of those cpus in games, and it only costs a buck fifty.

here are a couple good points:

Originally posted by: RMSe17
when it comes down to it, I play games more than run the installations for them...

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
the anticipation is that future apps will better exploit the Core i7's advantages.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Rick James
http://i234.photobucket.com/al...ld_yorkfield_bloom.png

That's pure sugar right there. :thumbsup: Kudos on pulling all that together!

 

[Rick James]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Rick James
http://i234.photobucket.com/al...ld_yorkfield_bloom.png

That's pure sugar right there. :thumbsup: Kudos on pulling all that together!

I actually pulled that from another website but it tells the true story. Clock for clock the Phenom 2 cannot touch an I7.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Rick James
http://i234.photobucket.com/al...ld_yorkfield_bloom.png

That's pure sugar right there. :thumbsup: Kudos on pulling all that together!

We don't know anything about the frequencies of other components of the computer that could be impacting scores, probably up to +/- 15%...

 

[Rick James]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Rick James
http://i234.photobucket.com/al...ld_yorkfield_bloom.png

That's pure sugar right there. :thumbsup: Kudos on pulling all that together!

We don't know anything about the frequencies of other components of the computer that could be impacting scores, probably up to +/- 15%...

That was put together by a guy who ran identical setups. The mb and processor were obviously different but everything else was the same. Same video card, hard drives, memory. Every detail was carefully done to just show the difference between the I7 and Phenom 2.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: RMSe17
Wow.. after seeing these benchmarks I am strongly considering getting a C2Q or maybe even a Phenom 2. I was all set on getting the i7 920, been waiting for D0, but now I wonder.. why pay more $$ for equal or lower performance in games? At higher heat levels too... Sure i7 can RAR stuff faster than anything on the planet, but when it comes down to it, I play games more than run the installations for them... My world got turned upside down. thanks

Why get a quad for gaming at all?

Because some games are starting to support more than 2 cores.

Originally posted by: Rick James
I actually pulled that from another website but it tells the true story. Clock for clock the Phenom 2 cannot touch an I7.

The same could be said for C2Q. Given the cost premium of i7 over PhII, one would hope that would be the case.

Interesting how PhII beats i7 in Far Cry 2 as the resolution increases...

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Rick James

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Rick James
http://i234.photobucket.com/al...ld_yorkfield_bloom.png

That's pure sugar right there. :thumbsup: Kudos on pulling all that together!

We don't know anything about the frequencies of other components of the computer that could be impacting scores, probably up to +/- 15%...

That was put together by a guy who ran identical setups. The mb and processor were obviously different but everything else was the same. Same video card, hard drives, memory. Every detail was carefully done to just show the difference between the I7 and Phenom 2.

I'm talking about RAM speeds, FSB speeds/timings, HT speeds, etc.

Not saying the Phenom II has any chance of hanging with an i7, just saying that there could be some swings we don't know about...

Aren't there reports that the uncore clock for the Phenom II scales pretty linearly and at 1.8GHz is kind of a bottleneck (ESPECIALLY if the chip is overclocked to 3.7GHz)

 

[Elfear]

I imagine in most games you won't see much of a difference between a PII and an i7, but once you throw more than one graphics card into the mix the i7 really starts to flex its muscles. HardOCP had a pretty good article comparing processors with Tri-SLI. The i7 dominates the FarCry 2 benchmarks. Anandtech did a similar review and found the i7 to be generally quicker in multi-gpu setups.

If you're not going for multi-gpu, then a PII or C2D would work just as well as the CQD or i7.

 

[Rick James]

Originally posted by: Elfear
I imagine in most games you won't see much of a difference between a PII and an i7, but once you throw more than one graphics card into the mix the i7 really starts to flex its muscles. HardOCP had a pretty good article comparing processors with Tri-SLI. The i7 dominates the FarCry 2 benchmarks. Anandtech did a similar review and found the i7 to be generally quicker in multi-gpu setups.

If you're not going for multi-gpu, then a PII or C2D would work just as well as the CQD or i7.

People still run a single GPU these days? Thats no fun

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Because some games are starting to support more than 2 cores.

I sure hope Blizzard, among others, adopts this concept soon.

(WOW, StarCraft 2, Diablo 3...)

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: RMSe17
Wow.. after seeing these benchmarks I am strongly considering getting a C2Q or maybe even a Phenom 2. I was all set on getting the i7 920, been waiting for D0, but now I wonder.. why pay more $$ for equal or lower performance in games? At higher heat levels too... Sure i7 can RAR stuff faster than anything on the planet, but when it comes down to it, I play games more than run the installations for them... My world got turned upside down. thanks

Why get a quad for gaming at all?

Because some games are starting to support more than 2 cores.

Originally posted by: Rick James
I actually pulled that from another website but it tells the true story. Clock for clock the Phenom 2 cannot touch an I7.

The same could be said for C2Q. Given the cost premium of i7 over PhII, one would hope that would be the case.

Interesting how PhII beats i7 in Far Cry 2 as the resolution increases...

I remember very specifically a website that showed the PhI beating C2D's as resolution increased. Overclockworkbench? Something like that. This was pretty much at the hieght of the C2D, and when the PhI damage had already been done. For the record, I'm not saying that PhI is a better CPU than C2D for gaming. I'm saying there might be situations where AMD had an advantage, though at the time anything labeled "Phenom" was treated as if it were poison on these forums.

And I agree with IDC, I really liked looking at that chart. Really easy to see what PhII excels at, but also easy to see how the different Intel architectures stack up with one another in different areas. I remember Hypterthreading being a pretty mixed bag on the P4, sometimes providing nice gains, sometimes not worth having on at all. It's still somewhat a mixed bag according to that chart, but I'd say it's very much mostly positive. It certainly is a pretty cool technology for some things. :thumbsup:

 

[soccerballtux]

Random story-- noob on some UT3 server was complaining about how his processor wasn't stable. I asked him what processor he had, and he had a Pentium D oc'd to 4.4Ghz on water powering his gtx280.
I told him that my 3.4Ghz $80 processor (one in my sig) was faster than his and he flipped, most people on the server agreed his was faster. :/

Clock for clock the Pentium D is half as fast as the Pentium Duals (core 2's with 1MB l2 cache like mine).
Asked him what fps he had in Deck and he said "50". I hope he meant to type 60. Because that's just sad.