# Phenom II 955 vs. Intels i7



## t77snapshot (Apr 20, 2009)

A German website where they benchmarked the Phenom II 955/ 940/ 920 with the i7 965xe/ 940/ 920.

http://www.hardware-infos.com/tests.php?test=64&seite=1 

When it comes to gaming, who is on top? Tell me your thought...


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Apr 20, 2009)

damn! oh well I would'nt using the i7 as a gaming machine anyway


----------



## RevengE (Apr 20, 2009)

good thing I speak german.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Apr 20, 2009)

Well I don't
had to guess


----------



## t77snapshot (Apr 20, 2009)

Yeah I'm sure it would help to know the language, but the specs and charts tell most of info.


----------



## 3870x2 (Apr 20, 2009)

t77snapshot said:


> A German website where they benchmarked the Phenom II 955/ 940/ 920 with the i7 965xe/ 940/ 920.
> 
> http://www.hardware-infos.com/tests.php?test=64&seite=1
> 
> When it comes to gaming, who is on top? Tell me your thought...



There are no "thoughts" to it, i7 wins.  It turns out that although PII is successful, it also turns out that i7 is wildly successful.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Apr 20, 2009)

i7


----------



## t77snapshot (Apr 20, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> good thing I speak german.



Well tell us if there is anything we should know about in the article


----------



## RevengE (Apr 20, 2009)

Not really it talks about the make up of the 955 in the beginning nothing special. As you can tell from the carts the i7 still owns.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Apr 20, 2009)

Another biased review:







:shadedshu

They're using a garbage asrock board and DDR2 memory, of course the i7 is gonna win!  They should at least use the same memory and a descent board for both test setups.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Apr 20, 2009)

well it's a shame that they can't get better ram


----------



## RevengE (Apr 20, 2009)

I just skimmed through it. The fact is DDR2&3 only have slight performance differences, I am guessing even with DDR3 the i7 would still pull ahead.


----------



## suraswami (Apr 20, 2009)

One thing I don't understand is why don't they put in the total system cost (what ever currency they are buying stuff with) also?


----------



## 3870x2 (Apr 20, 2009)

To tell you the truth, those charts are with DDR2 memory, and a less than admirable board, I would say the actual benches are somewhere firmly between what was shown.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 20, 2009)

For gaming? They're pretty much the same (we need a stickied article explaining this, I can't for the life of me figure out why people using games as cpu benchmarks). For processor intensive tasks? i7 by a landslide.


----------



## suraswami (Apr 20, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> For gaming? They're pretty much the same (we need a stickied article explaining this, I can't for the life of me figure out why people using games as cpu benchmarks). For processor intensive tasks? i7 by a landslide.



because CPU and Videocard are like Engine and transmission.  Both has to be fast.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 20, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> Another biased review:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090420/Capture027.png
> 
> ...



The x58 board isnt a good one its an Intel stock one and there are not any really decent Intel made boards, this "smackover" would be at the lower end of x58's according to the reviews I have read..... the bottom line is that the 940 only supports DDR2 and the i7 only supports DDR3, thats the nature of it so you cant really say it's unfair, it's a limtation of the 940.

Next people are going to complain that it's not fair to compare the 955 against i7 as i7 has triple channel, AMD are more than welcome to design a triple channel capable CPU if they want


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 20, 2009)

suraswami said:


> because CPU and Videocard are like Engine and transmission.  Both has to be fast.



Not really. Gaming has far more to do w/ videocard than cpu. So long as your cpu is quick enough not to drastically bottleneck your gpu, you'll be fine, and the difference is a few fps. This can be shown in just about every bench out right now.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

Cant you wait a week to finish my 955 system and post correct benchmarks ????


----------



## AltecV1 (Apr 20, 2009)

for gameing the 955 IS THE best choice no thouth


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 20, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> for gameing the 955 IS THE best choice no thouth



Lol based on 2 games, and my old eyesight must be playing games with me, either that or I am misunderstanding ze german as it looks to me that in farcry 2 the i7 won?  

And at the lower res (the most CPU intensive) on Crysis the i7 wins?  Am I missing something here or are the "blind leading the blind"?  GRAW 1 dont really count as it's 4 years old for god sake, even then the i7 wins at the lower res.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

Tatty i will check both systems with Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead, hopefully thats good enough to cover most people.


----------



## suraswami (Apr 20, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> So long as your cpu is quick enough not to drastically bottleneck your gpu, you'll be fine



There you go, u answered the question.  Play with a P4 3 Ghz + GTX 280 and then with C2D 8400 + GTX 280 then you know CPU also plays an important role.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 20, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> Tatty i will check both systems with Far Cry 2 and Crysis Warhead, hopefully thats good enough to cover most people.



A COD 4 or 5  would be nice also if you have it.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 20, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> Another biased review:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090420/Capture027.png
> 
> ...



DDR3 does no good for PhenomII as of yet. Beside, i7 would still win anyway. PII was never made to compete with i7, and isn't expected to. It's not it's target market, Yorkfield is.


----------



## suraswami (Apr 20, 2009)

May be w1Z should post a review so we know its a trusty unbiased one.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

Tatty_One said:


> A COD 4 or 5  would be nice also if you have it.



Well ok, COD5 as well since i have it.
I will also throw in some synthetic benchmarks for the shake of it


----------



## X-Terminator (Apr 20, 2009)

I'm going to have to call bullshiz on the review.  First of all what gamer has the resolution on 800 x 600.  Second I have core i7 and Farcry 2 and GTX 285 not the GTX 280 and @ 1680x1050, 4xAA / 16xAF I get average of 69.43 FPS. not 50,39 FPS, I know my video card is one step better and the GTX 280 but it's not 19 FPS off.

Lets wait till someone that you can trust does a review and then judge.


----------



## vontrapp (Apr 20, 2009)

This is not a real review of the 955 but just the same old simulated benchmark that's been up since April 7th (check article date)



> In der folgenden Tabelle, die die technischen Daten bereitstellen, wurde auch bereits der Phenom II X4 955 mit 3,2 GHz Takt aufgenommen. Wir haben ihn für diesen Test mit dem Phenom II X4 940 *simuliert*



And yes you guessed it "simuliert" means...simulated 

I hold no value to simulated reviews. Let's have some real benchmarks (in 3 days or so?)


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

I will personally have the tests ready on the 29th if i get all the hardware until then.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 20, 2009)

All I looked at were the game benches and the 955 seems to be better on par. Screw synthetics, who sits down and plays synthetic benchmarks all day.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 20, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> All I looked at were the game benches and the 955 seems to be better on par. Screw synthetics, who sits down and plays synthetic benchmarks all day.



Me. In fact, I bench more often than I game. I only game because a bench rig just so happens to be good at gaming.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2009)

Wile E said:


> DDR3 does no good for PhenomII as of yet. Beside, i7 would still win anyway. PII was never made to compete with i7, and isn't expected to. It's not it's target market, Yorkfield is.



not 100% true comparing my systems running DDR2@1140 4-4-4-12 and DDR3 1704 6-6-6-18 there was a good hunk of difference i know superpi is a bad test but DDR2 was 200mhz faster and .02sec slower in super pi. wprime was the same way and so was scm2 DDR3 was worth about 200mhz worth of clock speed.


----------



## AltecV1 (Apr 20, 2009)

it is so nice too see intel fanboys dry humping every word you saybe side PII wasnt made to complete with I7 it slike bmw man is trying to conivse a merc guy that the bmw is better car IT IS A DEAD END!


----------



## Wile E (Apr 20, 2009)

cdawall said:


> not 100% true comparing my systems running DDR2@1140 4-4-4-12 and DDR3 1704 6-6-6-18 there was a good hunk of difference i know superpi is a bad test but DDR2 was 200mhz faster and .02sec slower in super pi. wprime was the same way and so was scm2 DDR3 was worth about 200mhz worth of clock speed.



Those are about the only apps that show any real improvement by the move to DDR3 on PII. Most everything else is unaffected.

Of course, DDR3 on PII is still a little immature. New BIOSes or a process tweak or 2 could change that. But that wouldn't help the scope of this particular review at this point in time anyway.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

Tatty and Wille which card should i use for the Game tests ? Opinions needed


----------



## Wile E (Apr 20, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> Tatty and Wille which card should i use for the Game tests ? Opinions needed


 I say the 295. It's a dual gpu card, and will show any cpu bottlenecks much easier.


----------



## JATownes (Apr 20, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Me. In fact, I bench more often than I game. I only game because a bench rig just so happens to be good at gaming.



Me Too.   Benching is just fun.  It took me a few weeks to break 20,000 3DMarks with my 940 & 4850's.  I felt like doing backflips when I hit 20,023.    And now I know how to get the most out of my games.  Otherwise how would I have known without benching??  

Best hobby around IMO.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 20, 2009)

suraswami said:


> There you go, u answered the question.  Play with a P4 3 Ghz + GTX 280 and then with C2D 8400 + GTX 280 then you know CPU also plays an important role.



Yes if you bench a 4-5 year old proc w/ a top o the line video card you can expect to see drastic differences. If you bench two top o the line processors from now w/ a top o the line card from now you won't. Why is this hard?


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I say the 295. It's a dual gpu card, and will show any cpu bottlenecks much easier.



I was thinking the GTX275 or GTX285 to be more precise due to the nature ( SLI ) of the GTX295...


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Those are about the only apps that show any real improvement by the move to DDR3 on PII. Most everything else is unaffected.
> 
> Of course, DDR3 on PII is still a little immature. New BIOSes or a process tweak or 2 could change that. But that wouldn't help the scope of this particular review at this point in time anyway.



any boost is enough for me 



Wile E said:


> I say the 295. It's a dual gpu card, and will show any cpu bottlenecks much easier.



how about a pair of 285's and a 3870X2


----------



## Wile E (Apr 20, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> I was thinking the GTX275 or GTX285 to be more precise due to the nature ( SLI ) of the GTX295...



That though had crossed my mind as well. After thinking about it tho, I thought maybe testing for the bottleneck would be better.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 20, 2009)

X-Terminator said:


> I'm going to have to call bullshiz on the review.  First of all what gamer has the resolution on 800 x 600.  Second I have core i7 and Farcry 2 and GTX 285 not the GTX 280 and @ 1680x1050, 4xAA / 16xAF I get average of 69.43 FPS. not 50,39 FPS, I know my video card is one step better and the GTX 280 but it's not 19 FPS off.
> 
> Lets wait till someone that you can trust does a review and then judge.



They have run it at such low resolutions because that places a greater load on the CPU and less on the GPU, at higher res the GPU takes the majority of the strain.


----------



## wiak (Apr 20, 2009)

Wile E said:


> DDR3 does no good for PhenomII as of yet. Beside, i7 would still win anyway. PII was never made to compete with i7, and isn't expected to. It's not it's target market, Yorkfield is.


jup, who the heck compares a $1000 cpu like i7 965 to a sub ~$280 cpu like 955
they arnt even on the same generation, if someone wants to compare i7 with something they should wait for AMD's bulldozer

the reason why Intel has i7 now, is they have a 1 year lead over AMD on manufactoring, if AMD had 45nm last year, they would have had bulldozer by now, and Phenom whould have beaten most Intel highest end last year, why? just look at Phenom and Phenom II, its nearly the same core, just some tweaks and more cache and higher speeds


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

cdawall i dont have any 3870x2 at the moment.


----------



## SystemViper (Apr 20, 2009)

I7 all the way.....

loving it!


----------



## AltecV1 (Apr 20, 2009)

intel fanboys vs. amd fanboys the fight is on


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> cdawall i dont have any 3870x2 at the moment.



look at my sys specs


----------



## suraswami (Apr 20, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Yes if you bench a 4-5 year old proc w/ a top o the line video card you can expect to see drastic differences. If you bench two top o the line processors from now w/ a top o the line card from now you won't. Why is this hard?



All I am saying is you need both cpu and vga to be decent enough and play well together.

end of topic.


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

cdawall said:


> look at my sys specs



If you can aquire an i7 system you could perhaps do a test yourself ?


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> If you can aquire an i7 system you could perhaps do a test yourself ?



freaksavior has the i7 i'm going to run a comparo with and we will be clocking them both on DICE


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

Nice 

I will also do the test with the GTX275 i think.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 20, 2009)

suraswami said:


> All I am saying is you need both cpu and vga to be decent enough and play well together.
> 
> end of topic.



Well, you also need a good motherboard, decent ram, and a good power supply to fully take advantage. But if benching 2 top of the line processors you'll never see much difference in gaming is all I was saying. It's a given a lesser cpu will still perform as well in games (if the cpu is from the same generation and near the same class).


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> Nice
> 
> I will also do the test with the GTX275 i think.



2x285 and a 3870X2 should do pretty good between our systems lol


----------



## HellasVagabond (Apr 20, 2009)

Well we try to compare systems and not GPUs so using a GTX295 or 2xGTX285 would not be the best solution as using a GTX275 or a GTX260...Who knows, i may throw all of them in if i have the time


----------



## t77snapshot (Apr 20, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> i7



AMD==Intel


----------



## AltecV1 (Apr 20, 2009)

t77snapshot said:


> AMD==Intel


----------



## cdawall (Apr 20, 2009)

HellasVagabond said:


> Well we try to compare systems and not GPUs so using a GTX295 or 2xGTX285 would not be the best solution as using a GTX275 or a GTX260...Who knows, i may throw all of them in if i have the time



i'm going to try the cards on both systems so i7+285SLI and P2+285SLI same for the 3870X2


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 20, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> intel fanboys vs. amd fanboys the fight is on



Lol, no fight, just one faster processor and it begins with i not A


----------



## vbx (Apr 20, 2009)

I'm making the switch to AMD once the 955 is available.


----------



## SeanG (Apr 21, 2009)

I just got an updated bios to support the 955 for my board.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 21, 2009)

Some people are trying too hard to troll their way into derailing the topic. Keeping an eye...


----------



## mrw1986 (Apr 21, 2009)

I'm not gonna lie...that 955 looks sexy especially since it wins at the framerate I play it...1680x1050, however it gets spanked in encoding and what not which I do a lot of.


----------



## iandh (Apr 21, 2009)

I own both DDR2 AM2+ and DDR3 AM3 setups, there are slight differences in performance but nothing groundbreaking... a couple percent maybe. My AM3 setup seems snappier while OC'ed in desktop use though.



Either way, this is like Cheeseburgers vs. Pizza - which makes you fatter?

Which has a better $/fatness ratio?



I'd love an i7 rig, it just is impossible to justify as all I use my PC for is gaming and light CAD work.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 21, 2009)

For a CPU that wasn't even meant to compete with i7 thats some realy good scores for AMD, im impressed.

I guess the scores against C2D must be very close to that of the Phenom's? or if not better going by what im seeing?


----------



## vbx (Apr 22, 2009)

So when is the 955 supposed release date?


----------



## SeanG (Apr 22, 2009)

Tomorrow.Ill tell you tho,its hard not to get the 940 at this price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Apr 22, 2009)

No one here knows about Google Translate?

Oh well, here is the site translated.

http://translate.google.com/transla...?test=64&seite=1+&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=

Course the pretty charts pretty much say it all...


----------



## Assassin48 (Apr 22, 2009)

That is a simulated 955 
its a 940 oc to 955 specs 

the 955 is going to be better


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Apr 23, 2009)

Yeah, its a Phenom X4 II 940 clocked to 3.2ghz...so the 955 should do better, and should OC a lot better.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 23, 2009)

Assassin48 said:


> That is a simulated 955
> its a 940 oc to 955 specs
> 
> the 955 is going to be better



Why?


----------



## iandh (Apr 23, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Why?



They have higher stock clockspeed (3.2 vs. 3.0) and I believe a lower stock vcore (1.25 vs. 1.35) which means they are binned higher, so should OC higher with lower volts than a 940, and preliminary numbers from several forums support this theory.


----------



## farlex85 (Apr 23, 2009)

iandh said:


> They have higher stock clockspeed (3.2 vs. 3.0) and I believe a lower stock vcore (1.25 vs. 1.35) which means they are binned higher, so should OC higher with lower volts than a 940, and preliminary numbers from several forums support this theory.



At equivalent clocks they should still preform equivalently though, which would make testing a 940 @ 3.2ghz valid no?


----------



## cdawall (Apr 23, 2009)

iandh said:


> They have higher stock clockspeed (3.2 vs. 3.0) and I believe a lower stock vcore (1.25 vs. 1.35) which means they are binned higher, so should OC higher with lower volts than a 940, and preliminary numbers from several forums support this theory.



lol those prelimanary numbers are mostly from me and the chips carry the same 1.35v stock voltage


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 23, 2009)

3870x2 said:


> There are no "thoughts" to it, i7 wins.  It turns out that although PII is successful, it also turns out that i7 is wildly successful.



If you call winning tossing a $1000 processor against $200 - $300 ones then your right. 

But like I been saying the PII's game fantastically and take a look, 800x600 the i7's win, and 1650x1050 PII's win Max and Min and even have a bigger lead on FC2, a $300 proc beating out a 1k proc, thats some good stuff.

But yes both are excellent choices.



Assassin48 said:


> That is a simulated 955
> its a 940 oc to 955 specs
> 
> the 955 is going to be better



oooo, nice to know.


----------



## iandh (Apr 23, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> At equivalent clocks they should still preform equivalently though, which would make testing a 940 @ 3.2ghz valid no?



He said better as in "better OC'er" unless I misunderstood



cdawall said:


> lol those prelimanary numbers are mostly from me and the chips carry the same 1.35v stock voltage



I'm aware that you have the chip, I've seen your screens. You are not the only one on the entire internet that has posted screens, and you are NOT the only person I know of with one in hand. 

My company sells equipment to AMD R&D and I have some contacts, although they are tight lipped.

The first screens I saw with lower vcore were from an asian forum and came long before you started posting about your chip... that's why I said "I believe" and not "it does".


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 23, 2009)

Chances are though lower v could be them breaking in the proc. I was able to run my 720 with 100mhz overclock at like 1.15v.


----------



## iandh (Apr 23, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Chances are though lower v could be them breaking in the proc. I was able to run my 720 with 100mhz overclock at like 1.15v.



An NDA-breaker thread earlier today on XS (now deleted) said that it auto-detected @ 1.4v but likely a bios bug.

Anyways, the vcore wasn't my main point... my main point was that everything we've seen so far indicates that these chips are improved OC'ers.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Apr 23, 2009)

I havent looked a ton into it, but I really hope your right.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 23, 2009)

iandh said:


> He said better as in "better OC'er" unless I misunderstood
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i know i am not the only nor was i the first however i have a full retail chip and it defaults to a 1.35v vcore and will oc to 3.6ghz on that vcore stable


----------



## iandh (Apr 23, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I havent looked a ton into it, but I really hope your right.



I have a couple friends on other forums that have hinted that I am. People were being strangely hush-hush about this chip though, usually I hear more. :/



cdawall said:


> i know i am not the only nor was i the first however i have a full retail chip and it defaults to a 1.35v vcore and will oc to 3.6ghz on that vcore stable



Sorry didn't mean to sound snappy, something stupid happened prior to me typing that post


Anyways, I have four Phenom II's, two of which are decent clockers and neither of them can get anywhere near 3.6 on stock volts... so if yours is an example of average retail (which I think it is from what I've seen) then this is going to be a pretty damned impressive chip, especially the good ones.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 23, 2009)

iandh said:


> I have a couple friends on other forums that have hinted that I am. People were being strangely hush-hush about this chip though, usually I hear more. :/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



oh its as average as they get and will be on DICE tomorrow


----------



## SeanG (Apr 23, 2009)

Thier up at newegg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674


good price too.


----------



## Binge (Apr 23, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> Another biased review:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090420/Capture027.png
> 
> ...



They're using garbage DDR3 and a garbage x58 motherboard... what's your point?  It doesn't matter anyway... you can't compare the two right out of the box for people like us.  It's what you do with the chip that matters.


----------



## t77snapshot (Apr 24, 2009)

SeanG said:


> Thier up at newegg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103674
> 
> 
> good price too.



sick


----------



## vbx (Apr 24, 2009)

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10010385

Free shipping and no tax for those in Cali, and a couple bucks cheaper then at the egg.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 24, 2009)

iandh said:


> They have higher stock clockspeed (3.2 vs. 3.0) and I believe a lower stock vcore (1.25 vs. 1.35) which means they are binned higher, so should OC higher with lower volts than a 940, and preliminary numbers from several forums support this theory.



Lower Vid/VCore at stock settings and higher binned chips dont always mean they overclock better, quite often a lower Vid chip will be more vunerable to heat at higher Vcores, I am not suggesting that will be the case here with the 955 but I am wary of performance at stock being judged as a "given" performance indicator when heavily overclocked.  My i7 920 does 4.1gig bench stable on air at 1.29v, once I hit anything over 1.3V the temps sky rocket where as some 920's may take 1.35v to get to 4.1gig but run cooler at those speeds/voltage.


----------



## Morgoth (Apr 24, 2009)

my i7 is sepurier then your primate amd


----------



## n-ster (Apr 24, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> If you call winning tossing a *$1000* processor against $200 - $300 ones then your right.
> 
> But like I been saying the PII's game fantastically and take a look, 800x600 the i7's win, and 1650x1050 PII's win Max and Min and even have a bigger lead on FC2, a $300 proc beating out a *1k proc*, thats some good stuff.
> .



i7 920 OCed to 4ghz (HT off) vs PII 955 OCed to 4ghz is a fair comparision... and just guess who wins? and guess which can be bought at 230$ at Microcenter? HINT: both of the questions have the same answer...

Here at TPU, we hate the i7 940 and i7 965 for price/performance... did you know that?

Who agrees that as long as we don't OC them both, it is not a fair comparasion?


----------



## Binge (Apr 24, 2009)

agreed


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 24, 2009)

Pointless discussion really, those who prefer AMD are gonna concentrate on the 10% of things a Phenom II beats an i7 at and ignore the other 90%, Intel followers will do the opposite, bottom line, I could go out and by a scooter to get to work in, I choose a Mercedes instead, we all have a choice, just please, if your choice is the cheaper option, dont afterwards try and tell me it's better, it's CHEAPER but not better.

Cost and value for money are VERY important, to me also, the i7 920 is not badly priced, but the top of the range Phenom II is possibly a little cheaper, you can get AM3 motherboards cheaper than S1366, but the real top end ones are expensive, it's all relative to what we want and can afford.  Those that choose the value for money option should not be critiscised for it, as shouldnt the ones who choose to spend a bit more.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 24, 2009)

but the thing is that i7 probably beats PII 955 if both were at 4ghz (HT off for the i7) in *100%* of the things...

Also, it's funny that some people agree that the higher end Qxxxx beat PII, and that i7 beats Qxxxxs, but they don't agree that i7 beats PII...

IMO i7 is a better buy the PII 955... especially if you buy the i7 at Microcenter... IMO PII 940 is a better buy than 955, the gains are neligeable, and you pay like 70$ more? that's like the difference in price between i7 and PII 955

I also think that on budget, PII 720BE is the best buy... I am no intel fan, nor am I an AMD fan... this is an UNBIASED point of view capish? so if you dare call me an intel fan.......


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 24, 2009)

Not everyone lives near a microcenter. I don't live anywhere near a microcenter. I probably would've gotten i7 if they retailed for less than the phenoms, but they don't where I live. And when I was buying the cheapest good i7 board was like 350$ and DDR3 was still expensive. I don't regret it tho, probably going to build an i5 rig to play if they ever come out.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 24, 2009)

you could probably still ask a TPU member to buy one and send it for you for 250$... nowadays, 220$  gets you the DFI DK... a great board... 80$ gets you 6gb of DDR3 1600mhz or those famous crucials (75$) that OC that far very easily

That makes what? 550$...

a PII 955 will be about 450$ right?

PII 940 is like 350$ right?

PII 720 BE is like 285$ (AM2+) 325$ (AM3) right?

still prefer i7  PII 940 or 720BE are still good choices... (now to think about it, 940 is a very good deal now  )

PII 955 sucks IMO


----------



## hat (Apr 24, 2009)

Not everyone has shitloads of money to throw at thier computers. My processor cost $30. It was a little slow at stock speed of 2.2GHz, but still fast enough for anything I have (including Crysis). Then I overclocked to 3GHz, and all was well.


----------



## vladmire (Apr 24, 2009)

budget wise, PII's. I just need a decent/good performing pc for everyday use.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 24, 2009)

My point is for the price, PII 955 SUCKS when the price goes down, I'll change my mind...


----------



## cdawall (Apr 25, 2009)

n-ster said:


> you could probably still ask a TPU member to buy one and send it for you for 250$... nowadays, 220$  gets you the DFI DK... a great board... 80$ gets you 6gb of DDR3 1600mhz or those famous crucials (75$) that OC that far very easily
> 
> That makes what? 550$...
> 
> ...




umm the 955 is $230 none of your prices are even remotely close


----------



## n-ster (Apr 25, 2009)

I meant CPU + mobo + RAM DUHHHHH

lol sry... I thought it was obvious since its 550$ for i7 + i7 mobo + ddr3

EDIT: anyhow, how could a 720BE have an AM2+ version and a AM3 version? lol


----------



## iandh (Apr 25, 2009)

n-ster said:


> but the thing is that i7 probably beats PII 955 if both were at 4ghz (HT off for the i7) in *100%* of the things...
> 
> Also, it's funny that some people agree that the higher end Qxxxx beat PII, and that i7 beats Qxxxxs, but they don't agree that i7 beats PII...
> 
> ...



You have to consider though, many members of sites like this are primarily gamers. From a gamer's point of view PII is superior to i7 in _some_ situations... such as mine.

i7 does beat PII quite badly in systems with 3-4 GPU's, but there are several games in which PII beats i7 with 1-2 GPU's, such as Crysis. In most other games it is a draw so there is no argument to be made.

Also, PII offers identical gaming performance in midrange systems while drawing less power and OC'ing higher on less adequate cooling. Most folks that already have decent air coolers don't necessarily have 1366 mounts since their coolers were purchased before i7, and even if they bought mounts their coolers wouldn't be good enough to get a respectable OC. PII will hit 3.6 plus on almost any damned thing.


I do agree many folks wear blinders when discussing the chips, but beware of falling into that same category yourself when discussing those blinder-wearing folks.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 25, 2009)

n-ster said:


> you could probably still ask a TPU member to buy one and send it for you for 250$... nowadays, 220$  gets you the DFI DK... a great board... 80$ gets you 6gb of DDR3 1600mhz or those famous crucials (75$) that OC that far very easily
> 
> That makes what? 550$...
> 
> ...



Why would I spend that much on something that needs watercooling to overclock with? I don't have that much money. And then I would have to buy DDR3, an expensive board and the CPU itself. 

My Phenom II upgrade was really cheap. Got the board for 100$, ram for 50$(and I've been using it since my E7200/P45) and I got the CPU for 100$. Not only that but I am playing all my games with the settings maxed out. Crysis, Left 4 Dead, Asscreed, STALKER, Everquest II, FarCry2 etc.. Why would I need to spend 290$ on a CPU that needs 300$+ in accessories for stuff that I already have? 

AMD's platform is far better for budget gamers is the point I'm trying to make.. Intel's i7 stuff is really only good for benchmarkers, people who just want to upgrade everything and gamers with high budgets. i5 should hopefully compete with the PII's in terms of performance, I'm interested in building an i5 folding rig myself. Should be fun to play with for a few weeks then it would be off to 24/7 F@H crunching 



n-ster said:


> EDIT: anyhow, how could a 720BE have an AM2+ version and a AM3 version? lol



What are you talking about? The AM3 CPU's have DDR2 and DDR3 controllers built in. They also work in any AM2 and AM3 board.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 25, 2009)

I know... but I put (AM2+) and (AM3)... and i thought it obvious that I meant like am2+ mobo vs AM3 and ddr2vs ddr3

My point is that a PII 940 is better then PII 955 in price performance...


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 25, 2009)

Yes, and it's also only compatible with DDR2. At least the 955 will work with DDR2 and DDR3 boards. I still don't get why you're saying it sucks. It obviously doesn't since it can keep up with the i7 in games, which is all that matters to most.


----------



## alucasa (Apr 25, 2009)

PhII 955 is priced at 358CAD in Canada. It's the same price as i7 920. If I had to choose between those two, I'd go for i7.
There is a 40CAD difference in a X58 motherboard and a 790FX DDR3 motherboard, but that isn't a big deal for me in the grand scheme of things.
Since I don't use DDR 2 anymore, DDR2's lower price is a moot point for me.

I was hoping to get my hands on PhII 955, but it looks like not for a while until either its price drops or I build another i7 rig.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 25, 2009)

n-ster said:


> I meant CPU + mobo + RAM DUHHHHH
> 
> lol sry... I thought it was obvious since its 550$ for i7 + i7 mobo + ddr3
> 
> EDIT: anyhow, how could a 720BE have an AM2+ version and a AM3 version? lol



ok in that case i have a 5600+ 780A and DDR2 so the upgrade to a 955 cost me $230

i also have a P45 e2200 and DDR2 upgrade to i7 cost $550



iandh said:


> You have to consider though, many members of sites like this are primarily gamers. From a gamer's point of view PII is superior to i7 in _some_ situations... such as mine.
> 
> i7 does beat PII quite badly in systems with 3-4 GPU's, but there are several games in which PII beats i7 with 1-2 GPU's, such as Crysis. In most other games it is a draw so there is no argument to be made.
> 
> ...





phenom II beats i7 with multi GPU scaling regardless of the number of GPU's 1GPU=i7 2+GPU=p2


----------



## Binge (Apr 25, 2009)

I want your proof CD.  Give us a quality build with both procs and multi gpu setups


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 25, 2009)

I thought it was the other way around.. If you get some screens up showing multi GPU scaling better on PII I will probably grab another 4850X2 for quadfire.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 25, 2009)

Binge said:


> I want your proof CD.  Give us a quality build with both procs and multi gpu setups



freaksaviors rig

i7 920@4.2ghz
DFI X58
3x2GB HCF8
500GB seagate 7200.12
2xGTX285
3870X2

phenom II 955
crosshair II formula
2x2GB D9JNL
320GB seagate 7200.10
2xGTX285
3870X2


----------



## Binge (Apr 25, 2009)

I hope you'll add in some solid proof that ammounts to over the 1-3% margin of error.


----------



## cdawall (Apr 25, 2009)

Binge said:


> I hope you'll add in some solid proof that ammounts to over the 1-3% margin of error.



look on XS they had some but they were all pulls from hwbot but it shows phenom II to have some damn good scaling i blame the mobo's honestly

what clocks for the phenom II to match the i7? we were going to put both on DICE phenom II should do around 4.7ghz 3D stable and i7 4.5ghz


----------



## Binge (Apr 25, 2009)

the test is 4.0GHz HT off.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 25, 2009)

fine i7 is not at all in the price range of PIIs... but still, PII 955 upgrade will cost you 250$... PII 940 will cost you 190$... What would you go for huh?


----------



## MKmods (Apr 25, 2009)

iandh said:


> You have to consider though, many members of sites like this are primarily gamers. From a gamer's point of view PII is superior to i7 in _some_ situations... such as mine.
> 
> i7 does beat PII quite badly in systems with 3-4 GPU's, but there are several games in which PII beats i7 with 1-2 GPU's, such as Crysis. In most other games it is a draw so there is no argument to be made.
> 
> ...



well said

All I know is since the 940 went to $169 I am now a proud owner of the 940.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 25, 2009)

isnt 940 190$? where is it at 170$? now that is a bargain... that is my point though... 940 is incredibly cheaper for 98% of the performance


----------



## captainskyhawk (Apr 25, 2009)

i7's a damn good chip -- if you have the money for it, buy it

but i'd rather just get a decent AMD mainboard and PII 940BE for 100 dollars less and then spend that extra money on a much better video card 

What's better, core i7 920 with a GTX 260 or PII 940BE with a GTX 285


----------



## MKmods (Apr 25, 2009)

n-ster said:


> isnt 940 190$? where is it at 170$? now that is a bargain... that is my point though... 940 is incredibly cheaper for 98% of the performance



thanks to kenkickr and 2wicked I was in the right place at the right time for a change..
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=91492

and till I see that DDR3 memory makes a big diff DDR2 is just fine for me too n-ster.


----------



## trt740 (Apr 25, 2009)

The PII 955 is very fast and is very competitive in several applications with the I7 and when you consider motherboard, ram and cpu it is cheaper .Since Ive now owned at DDR2 PII 940, 945 and a 920 I7 in the real world your going to see almost no difference from a 955 to a I7 920 , zero, zip, none and anyone who says different is full of it. The I7 at 3.8ghz , (which on air is the true average overclock )and the 940, 945 and 955 at 3.8ghz on air (also the average overclock)are going to perform in every day application almost the same, with the I7 being faster in most things but unless you are running a bench mark your not going to notice. There is no reason to have the "this ones better argument ",it's stupid and counter productive, because of AMD prices across the board keep getting lower. The truth being told, on a limited budget, would be to buy a AMD system, overclock it to hell and back , then take the extra money and buy a top of the line GPU. These AMD chips are very good and fast as hell. *Go AMD bring on the faster chips and push these prices down!!!!!*


----------



## SeanG (Apr 25, 2009)

Im a gamer and it cost me less than $600 to upgrade my computer to what I have now and ill kick your asses with your $3000 intel computers in cod4 and codwow.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 25, 2009)

trt740 said:


> The PII 955 is very fast and is very competitive in several applications with the I7 and when you consider motherboard, ram and cpu it is cheaper .Since Ive now owned at DDR2 PII 940, 945 and a 920 I7 in the real world your going to see almost no difference from a 955 to a I7 920 , zero, zip, none and anyone who says different is full of it. The I7 at 3.8ghz , (which on air is the true average overclock )and the 940, 945 and 955 at 3.8ghz on air (also the average overclock)are going to perform in every day application almost the same, with the I7 being faster in most things but unless you are running a bench mark your not going to notice. There is no reason to have the "this ones better argument ",it's stupid and counter productive, because of AMD prices across the board keep getting lower. The truth being told, on a limited budget, would be to buy a AMD system, overclock it to hell and back , then take the extra money and buy a top of the line GPU. These AMD chips are very good and fast as hell. *Go AMD bring on the faster chips and push these prices down!!!!!*



Yea you know, after this thread, I relized i7 isn't so great if it's for gaming... but I still stand by my point that 955 sucks compared to 940

I prefer going i7 though than PII 955 ANYDAY (unless we're talking upgrade, than I'll take 940BE)... I mean, 100$ more for an i7, I'll get the i7


----------



## wiak (Apr 25, 2009)

Phenom II AM2+/AM3 is exellent for people with AM2+ motherboards dating back to 2007!
my GA-MA790FX-DS5 supports latest Phenom II 955 fully after a simple bios update


----------



## Wile E (Apr 26, 2009)

trt740 said:


> The PII 955 is very fast and is very competitive in several applications with the I7 and when you consider motherboard, ram and cpu it is cheaper .Since Ive now owned at DDR2 PII 940, 945 and a 920 I7 in the real world your going to see almost no difference from a 955 to a I7 920 , zero, zip, none and anyone who says different is full of it. The I7 at 3.8ghz , (which on air is the true average overclock )and the 940, 945 and 955 at 3.8ghz on air (also the average overclock)are going to perform in every day application almost the same, with the I7 being faster in most things but unless you are running a bench mark your not going to notice. There is no reason to have the "this ones better argument ",it's stupid and counter productive, because of AMD prices across the board keep getting lower. The truth being told, on a limited budget, would be to buy a AMD system, overclock it to hell and back , then take the extra money and buy a top of the line GPU. These AMD chips are very good and fast as hell. *Go AMD bring on the faster chips and push these prices down!!!!!*



I would notice the difference easily. Most people on this site seem to assume that a computer's main use is gaming (Understandably, as that's the target audience), but that's not all a computer is good for. For instance, I do a shitload of encoding. i7 embarrasses PII in encoding, no ifs, ands or buts. That *IS* quite noticeable, and worth the extra money if you can afford it.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2009)

iandh said:


> You have to consider though, many members of sites like this are primarily gamers. From a gamer's point of view PII is superior to i7 in _some_ situations... such as mine.
> 
> i7 does beat PII quite badly in systems with 3-4 GPU's, but there are several games in which PII beats i7 with 1-2 GPU's, such as Crysis. In most other games it is a draw so there is no argument to be made.
> 
> ...



Agreed but in gaming situations, especially at a decent resolution, the Gfx card is the most important item, most members will probably have sufficient CPU's for gaming, if gaming was what the majority of member wanted to do most of the time, why would they even bother upgrading at this time to i7 or PII, their Core2/Quad or Phenom 1 setups would be more than adequate, and if they got that upgrade "itch" just buy a better gfx card.

IMO a lot less people upgrade a CPU to support better gameplay than they do to improve the "overall" speed of their system..... I might be wrong though.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 26, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Why would I spend that much on something that needs watercooling to overclock with? I don't have that much money. And then I would have to buy DDR3, an expensive board and the CPU itself.
> 
> My Phenom II upgrade was really cheap. Got the board for 100$, ram for 50$(and I've been using it since my E7200/P45) and I got the CPU for 100$. Not only that but I am playing all my games with the settings maxed out. Crysis, Left 4 Dead, Asscreed, STALKER, Everquest II, FarCry2 etc.. Why would I need to spend 290$ on a CPU that needs 300$+ in accessories for stuff that I already have?
> 
> ...



I can run 4.1gig and bench every app on air (just as thats the absolute limit temps wise to get thru all benches), but to be fair I have been very lucky with my chip, I can do that on 1.30V, watercooling gets the most out of a good chip without a doubt, but on air it still flies!

But of course there is no doubt the PII IS the most cost effective solution, especially if you are already an AM2/+ owner.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I would notice the difference easily. Most people on this site seem to assume that a computer's main use is gaming (Understandably, as that's the target audience), but that's not all a computer is good for. For instance, I do a shitload of encoding. i7 embarrasses PII in encoding, no ifs, ands or buts. That *IS* quite noticeable, and worth the extra money if you can afford it.



fact of it being a longer multi stage pipe than a shorter stage pipe, thats how the P4 was.


----------



## vbx (Apr 26, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I would notice the difference easily. Most people on this site seem to assume that a computer's main use is gaming (Understandably, as that's the target audience), but that's not all a computer is good for. For instance, I do a shitload of encoding. i7 embarrasses PII in encoding, no ifs, ands or buts. That *IS* quite noticeable, and worth the extra money if you can afford it.



So how long would it take for your i7 desktop to convert a dvd movie into an avi file? My P4 3.4HT takes forever.  About 40-55 minutes.

Those benchmarks scores is foreign to me.  Just give me a rough estimate in minutes.


----------



## Darren (Apr 26, 2009)

vbx said:


> So how long would it take for your i7 desktop to convert a dvd movie into an avi file? My P4 3.4HT takes forever.  About 40-55 minutes.
> 
> Those benchmarks scores is foreign to me.  Just give me a rough estimate in minutes.



It depends on the compression algorithm, the size of the DVD movie, the size of the .AVI and the quality of the end result.

But the P4 is like almost a decade old, ANY new CPU whether dual core or quad core will be a massive improvement beyond comprehension.

Edit:

Actually there are too many variables to consider, but ALOT faster.

Edit 2:

Personally I would rip the raw DVD straight to the hard disk, the quality will be better and you retain the 5 channel audio as well.

OK, it takes up a lot of space but 1 TB hard disks are cheap.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2009)

TBH AVI as a container file sucks.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 26, 2009)

Encoding isn't always that. For some it even means encoding a 100 MB TIFF file to a web-friendly JPEG that weighs a few hundred KB.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2009)

Darren said:


> Personally I would rip the raw DVD straight to the hard disk, the quality will be better and you retain the 5 channel audio as well.
> 
> OK, it takes up a lot of space but 1 TB hard disks are cheap.



there are better Formats than .AVI, .AVI is ancient, and its not updated if at all.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 26, 2009)

vbx said:


> So how long would it take for your i7 desktop to convert a dvd movie into an avi file? My P4 3.4HT takes forever.  About 40-55 minutes.
> 
> Those benchmarks scores is foreign to me.  Just give me a rough estimate in minutes.



I don't actually have i7 as of yet. But anyway, I haven't encoded anything to avi in ages, so I wouldn't be able to tell you anyway.

I do most of my encoding to 2-pass H.264 video/Dolby Digital 5.1 audio in mkv containers. Depending on the content and filters used, it usually takes just a little bit more than half the length of the movie being ripped on my QX9650. The i7 is something like 20% faster at the same speed as a Yorkfield in encoding.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> there are better Formats than .AVI, .AVI is ancient, and its not updated if at all.



You do realise that .avi is just a container, and that today's latest video formats such as DivX continue to use that container?


----------



## Wile E (Apr 26, 2009)

Darren said:


> It depends on the compression algorithm, the size of the DVD movie, the size of the .AVI and the quality of the end result.
> 
> But the P4 is like almost a decade old, ANY new CPU whether dual core or quad core will be a massive improvement beyond comprehension.
> 
> ...


mkv containers support the full 5.1 audio.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2009)

yes i know .avi is a container format, i'm just saying as a container file it is not as good as when it first came out due to probably not being updated for the times like DIVX/XVID are. Btw DIVX/XVID utilize MKV if im not mistaken


----------



## btarunr (Apr 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> yes i know .avi is a container format, i'm just saying as a container file it is not as good as when it first came out due to probably not being updated for the times like DIVX/XVID are. Btw DIVX/XVID utilize MKV if im not mistaken



It doesn't make a difference. All .avi has to do is hold the DivX and MP3 data, and stream it. Yes, you can drop DivX into any container, though .avi is the most popular container even today. Don't confuse container with a "format".


----------



## Darren (Apr 26, 2009)

Wile E said:


> mkv containers support the full 5.1 audio.



Indeed.

I'm not one for encoding myself, but if I download from a torrent, say a tv program I tend to look out for the MKVs because they usually retain the full 5.1 channels, which is great for my AV receiver.

But taking into account that I have a low-mid dual core and vbx has a Pentium 4, would ripping the DVD to the hard disk would be quicker than encoding a DVD to MKV?


----------



## Wile E (Apr 26, 2009)

Darren said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I'm not one for encoding myself, but if I download from a torrent, say a tv program I tend to look out for the MKVs because they usually retain the full 5.1 channels, which is great for my AV receiver.
> 
> But taking into account that I have a low-mid dual core and vbx has a Pentium 4, would ripping the DVD to the hard disk would be quicker than encoding a DVD to MKV?



Just flat ripping the DVD to disc is much faster. If you have the space for it, why not?

Personally, i rip to H.264 because I usually fill my hard drive before I can afford another one. I need that compression. lol.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 26, 2009)

BTA if you want to get technical with it...

here is a quick reference, the 3 letter abbreviation at the end of a file is known as the format/ file name extension

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_format_(digital)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_format


----------



## vbx (Apr 26, 2009)

Okay, lets say you ripped an ISO to the computer, then convert that ISO to .mkv.  How long would it take for an i7 powered desktop to convert that file to a .mkv.   It takes about the same time.  Almost an hour to convert a 2.5gb iso to a 1gb mkv.

The i7's should be able to do it in what? 10mins or less?


----------



## Darren (Apr 26, 2009)

vbx said:


> Okay, lets say you ripped an ISO to the computer, then convert that ISO to .mkv.  How long would it take for an i7 powered desktop to convert that file to a .mkv.   It takes about the same time.  Almost an hour to convert a 2.5gb iso to a 1gb mkv.
> 
> The i7's should be able to do it in what? 10mins or less?


----------



## btarunr (Apr 26, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> BTA if you want to get technical with it...
> 
> here is a quick reference, the 3 letter abbreviation at the end of a file is known as the format/ file name extension
> 
> ...



If you really read, understood, and knew what was in those articles, you wouldn't have posted this in the first place:



eidairaman1 said:


> there are better Formats than .AVI, .AVI is ancient, and its not updated if at all.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> If you really read, understood, and knew what was in those articles, you wouldn't have posted this in the first place:



I think he's hinting to the fact that avi is outdated because it isn't compatible with many of the newer codecs. (Well, not without hacks, anyway)

Thus, if it's in an avi container, it's not using a high quality codec anyway.


----------



## vbx (May 27, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I don't actually have i7 as of yet. But anyway, I haven't encoded anything to avi in ages, so I wouldn't be able to tell you anyway.
> 
> I do most of my encoding to 2-pass H.264 video/Dolby Digital 5.1 audio in mkv containers. Depending on the content and filters used, it usually takes just a little bit more than half the length of the movie being ripped on my QX9650. The i7 is something like 20% faster at the same speed as a Yorkfield in encoding.



Ok, I will compare my p4 3.4HT desktop to my 2.ghz Core 2duo laptop.

To combine 14 .avi files at about 84mb each into 1 huge file, it would take my P4 3 hours.
Compared to 1.2 hours on the Core 2 duo.

Using windows movie maker.


----------



## _33 (May 27, 2009)

I'm absolutely satisfied with my i7 config.  If I would have bought an AMD system instead, I would have saved money, but wouldn't have as good framerates in games, for many good reasons.  AMD has yet to design a processor that can beat the i7 (gaming or not).  That is why Intel will release the i5 platform, so AMD has competition.  And sadly for AMD, things won't get any better for now as Intel will release the 950 and 975.  I'm always for the best performing systems, that is why in 2004, I had a DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra-D and an overclocked AMD processor, but things have changed since Intel released the C2D.  PII is a good move for AMD but it doesn't win the performance crown, maybe a PIII.  I think in the end it's a question of budget, my guess is that AMD has the best bang for the dollars spent, but definately needs better processor to beat the top Intel ones.


----------



## Melvis (May 27, 2009)

_33 said:


> I'm absolutely satisfied with my i7 config.  If I would have bought an AMD system instead, I would have saved money, but wouldn't have as good framerates in games, for many good reasons.  AMD has yet to design a processor that can beat the i7 (gaming or not).  That is why Intel will release the i5 platform, so AMD has competition.  And sadly for AMD, things won't get any better for now as Intel will release the 950 and 975.  I'm always for the best performing systems, that is why in 2004, I had a DFI Lanparty NF4 Ultra-D and an overclocked AMD processor, but things have changed since Intel released the C2D.  PII is a good move for AMD but it doesn't win the performance crown, maybe a PIII.  I think in the end it's a question of budget, my guess is that AMD has the best bang for the dollars spent, but definately needs better processor to beat the top Intel ones.



http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii955/12.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-9.html

AMD Phenom is good for gaming as you can see it does compete well against i7 and mostly beats the Q9650. All in all there all about the same performance, which means AMD Phenoms are good enough and competive for gaming, everything else not so much against the i7 but gaming yes.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 27, 2009)

Core i7 came about as a Media Encoding Processor, thats where it excells at.


----------



## _33 (May 27, 2009)

Melvis said:


> http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii955/12.html
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-9.html
> 
> AMD Phenom is good for gaming as you can see it does compete well against i7 and mostly beats the Q9650. All in all there all about the same performance, which means AMD Phenoms are good enough and competive for gaming, everything else not so much against the i7 but gaming yes.



When you see benchmark scores where the Phenom II is on the heels of the i7, it's mostly because the test was run at high resolution with maximum game details.  If you see benchmarks where the test is run at low resolution and low game detail, you will see the i7 far ahread of the Phenom II processor.  In such case the test is limited by the graphics card's capacity to perform, where it bottlenecks.

http://www.techspot.com/review/162-amd-phenom2-x4-955/page10.html


----------



## farlex85 (May 27, 2009)

_33 said:


> When you see benchmark scores where the Phenom II is on the heels of the i7, it's mostly because the test was run at high resolution with maximum game details.  If you see benchmarks where the test is run at low resolution and low game detail, you will see the i7 far ahread of the Phenom II processor.  In such case the test is limited by the graphics card's capacity to perform, where it bottlenecks.
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/review/162-amd-phenom2-x4-955/page10.html



Why would you buy top end hardware and then care about low end performance? Who cares what does better at low detail, high detail is most certainly more realistic of a bench. Regardless, I wish I could set up a pepsi challenge type deal, cause I'd wager a decent sum of money I could set up 3 rigs (i7, PII, core 2) that were identical in every way other than processor (and mb of course), set them to settings you would play at, and you wouldn't be able to tell me which is which. When it comes to subjective performance in games, cpu is largely irrelevant (provided we exclude 5 year old tech, or pre-core 2). You may get better frames, but if you didn't count them you wouldn't know.


----------



## trickson (May 27, 2009)

t77snapshot said:


> A German website where they benchmarked the Phenom II 955/ 940/ 920 with the i7 965xe/ 940/ 920.
> 
> http://www.hardware-infos.com/tests.php?test=64&seite=1
> 
> When it comes to gaming, who is on top? Tell me your thought...



Not to sound like a fan boy but the Phenom II can't even hold a candle to a Q9650 let alone an i7 . Just MHO .


----------



## _33 (May 28, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> Why would you buy top end hardware and then care about low end performance? Who cares what does better at low detail, high detail is most certainly more realistic of a bench. Regardless, I wish I could set up a pepsi challenge type deal, cause I'd wager a decent sum of money I could set up 3 rigs (i7, PII, core 2) that were identical in every way other than processor (and mb of course), set them to settings you would play at, and you wouldn't be able to tell me which is which. When it comes to subjective performance in games, cpu is largely irrelevant (provided we exclude 5 year old tech, or pre-core 2). You may get better frames, but if you didn't count them you wouldn't know.



I'd say if you have a configuration where you have an SLI or a CROSSFIRE setup, where your system is less limited by the graphics hardware, there it would be justified to go with the i7, as your system is much less limited by the graphics performance.  But I'd say the difference would be still negligible.  But, passing through the benchmarks, generally speaking, I'd say AMD is doing a good job with their latest PII's for gaming performance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 28, 2009)

Core i7 dominates everything and games at low res.  Phenom II only comes out on top at high resolutions.

This story has been repeated in other benchmarks.  I still wouldn't take a Phenom II over a Core i7 because even at high resolutions, the Core i7 still posts good framerates.  Why lose all that performance in other applications just for a marginal gain in high res games?

To quote a Teladi: "You make no sense; you lose profit."


----------



## Binge (May 28, 2009)

God... not another one of these threads...


----------



## _33 (May 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Core i7 dominates everything and games at low res.  Phenom II only comes out on top at high resolutions.
> 
> This story has been repeated in other benchmarks.  I still wouldn't take a Phenom II over a Core i7 because even at high resolutions, the Core i7 still posts good framerates.  Why lose all that performance in other applications just for a marginal gain in high res games?
> 
> To quote a Teladi: "You make no sense; you lose profit."


But it's funny, how would you explain why the AMD comes on top (if very marginally) in most games at high resolution and high game details?  Would it be a better motherboard chipset than the X58 that manages the PCI-E better on AMD than on Intel's?...  It's definately not the processor's fault so I blame the X58 chipset here.


EDIT: Here's a funny link about a GTX 280 running Fear 2: Project Origin, from an AMD 4000+ single processor, right up to an Intel QX9650 
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...us-graphics-settings-compared/Reviews/?page=3
And here's AnandTech benches where you can select your bench and get tons of results on whatever:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 28, 2009)

Maybe QPI is higher latency than HTT.  Or everything on QPI has to go through more hoops to reach the IMC than it does on HTT.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 28, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> Another biased review:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090420/Capture027.png
> 
> ...



honestly the good AMD system in this compare decrease the Distance i the tests and don't show the AMD is crab just like in this tests , but still PHENOM II look great  with games but also still can't beat i7 in everst ans sandra , so im always say AMD need new platforms  



Tatty_One said:


> The x58 board isnt a good one its an Intel stock one and there are not any really decent Intel made boards, this "smackover" would be at the lower end of x58's according to the reviews I have read..... the bottom line is that the 940 only supports DDR2 and the i7 only supports DDR3, thats the nature of it so you cant really say it's unfair, it's a limtation of the 940.
> 
> Next people are going to complain that it's not fair to compare the 955 against i7 as i7 has triple channel, AMD are more than welcome to design a triple channel capable CPU if they want




agree my brother , AMD need new platforms , phenom II is great but chipset still crab


----------



## iandh (May 28, 2009)

trickson said:


> Not to sound like a fan boy but the Phenom II can't even hold a candle to a Q9650 let alone an i7 . Just MHO .



Yes, Q9650 and i7 are much better at wallet-raping, Phenom II can't even come close to intel in $ spent per frame.


----------



## e6600 (May 28, 2009)

iandh said:


> Yes, Q9650 and i7 are much better at wallet-raping, Phenom II can't even come close to intel in $ spent per frame.



neither can amd's gpus against nvidia


----------



## InTeL-iNsIdE (May 28, 2009)

iandh said:


> Yes, Q9650 and i7 are much better at wallet-raping, Phenom II can't even come close to intel in $ spent per frame.



just spent the last 30 mins reading through this thread, definately interesting reading if nothing else.

well my i7 920 cost me less than a phenom II 955 (uk prices £180 oem i7 920 and £200 pII955) althiough i got a good deal on it otherwise there priced the same

and for a fully featured top of the line board to go with the pII 955 your paying near x58 prices anyway ?


----------



## n-ster (May 28, 2009)

Did you know that you could get an i7 mobo+CPU+RAM at less than 400$? of course this may be used slightly...

people should stop compared i7 to PII... not something to compare to, and most of the time, only garbage is said for both ways... I bet you less than half the things said in this thread is plain wrong... and isn't this a month old thread?


----------



## iandh (May 28, 2009)

InTeL-iNsIdE said:


> just spent the last 30 mins reading through this thread, definately interesting reading if nothing else.
> 
> well my i7 920 cost me less than a phenom II 955 (uk prices £180 oem i7 920 and £200 pII955) althiough i got a good deal on it otherwise there priced the same
> 
> and for a fully featured top of the line board to go with the pII 955 your paying near x58 prices anyway ?



I was just making an unfair jab back at his unfair jab. All I was getting to was that even at its current price, the Phenom II 955 is still a pretty good deal.

Also, you don't really _need_ a top of the line board to go with the 955, you can get by just fine with one of the 790X AM3 boards for $120. With i7, you have no choice. You can even go super-cheap with the 955 and get something like a Biostar AM2+ 790GX board.

Here in the US the i7 is a bit more expensive than the 955 at normal prices but once in a while you can find pretty killer deals on i7.



Anyways, I really really like i7, but I don't do enough of the things it excels at to justify the cost for me.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

iandh said:


> Yes, Q9650 and i7 are much better at wallet-raping, Phenom II can't even come close to intel in $ spent per frame.



What ? ARE you for real? Come on now you can build a top end i7 set up for just as much ( If not LESS ) as a top end PII setup and get far better performance and not to mention that the Q9650 is far better and faster as well for even LESS than the PII so what is that ? 

As I see it there is a lot AMD needs to do other than stack on the SPEED to make them a winning gaming or Power House CPU JMHO is all nothing more . If you think that AMD has the better CPU at the better price then good go for it . 
But price / performance for ME hands down Intel is ridding high on the hill!


----------



## n-ster (May 28, 2009)

people seem to not realize that RAM is priced the same (3gb ddr3 at less than 50$... 4gb DDR2 same price)

CPU is about the same (230+ tax (245$ for me) at Microcenter, if you can't get it from there, lots of deals on i7s at that lower price for used vs 245$ for 955)

only difference is the board... a GOOD board for i7 can cost you 150$ used (ex: ECS) while the same AM3 would be 100$

there isn't much of a difference in price vs the 955... yet the i7 yields better performance


----------



## ShadowFold (May 28, 2009)

Some people fail to see that you can get a 720BE and a good board for 200-220$, that's less than what an i7 costs alone and you'll get near the same gaming performance at higher resolutions. I chose the X3 and a 790GX over the i7 and an X58(which I could've easily gotten) because I'm a gamer. I need graphics power over CPU power, the Phenom II lineup is the best price-performance CPU for a gamer, so I went with the obvious choice.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Some people fail to see that you can get a 720BE and a good board for 200-220$, that's less than what an i7 costs alone and you'll get near the same gaming performance at higher resolutions. I chose the X3 and a 790GX over the i7 and an X58(which I could've easily gotten) because I'm a gamer. I need graphics power over CPU power, the Phenom II lineup is the best price-performance CPU for a gamer, so I went with the obvious choice.



Sweet glad you you got a good set up .
But I have to disagree with you on the price/performance as well you have a try core not a quad core so when you think about it you lost a working core and nothing at all shows ( from what I have seen ) that any PII or try core is faster than a Quad core Intel in games or other apps . Maybe at supper high res some thing that most do not have or run the highest I run is 1680X1050 and I have yet to see an AMD CPU beat mine at that res . But it is more now to do with the video card any way and that is a different subject all together . 

But I think this all comes down to this what is it you like ? Do you like raw power and perfomance at a great price ? Or do you just want what will get you by ? that is how I see it .


----------



## Darren (May 28, 2009)

trickson said:


> _Not to sound like a fan boy but the Phenom II can't even hold a candle to a Q9650 let alone an i7 . Just MHO _.



The i7 can bearly "hold a candle" to the Q9650 either. 




trickson said:


> _you can build a top end i7 set up for just as much *( If not LESS )* as a top end PII setup and get far better performance _
> 
> 
> _But *price / performance *for ME hands down Intel is ridding high on the hill! _



Please refer to thread entitled "AMD Plans Massive 45 nm Transition, New CPUs Announced", post #91
click here! or alternatively read the quote below.



Darren said:


> If we take ram out of the equation and we presume that both the i7 and Phenom II builds are using DDR3 compatible motherboards and memory the Phenom II should be a lot cheaper than your predicted prices.
> 
> Remember if we match up the two cheapest and the two most expensive CPUs in the opposing brands range we'll see the price gap.
> 
> ...



PS. The Q9650 is £273.13, however the Phenom II 955 is 73.13 cheaper. So I I'm very much dubious to your previous claims of Intel being better price wise whether in either the i7 or Q-series domain.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

@Darren if you look at the performance you look at price's and you look at the threads OP I7 VS PII 955 then one can only state the facts the facts are that even the PII 955 has a hard time competing with the Q9650 let alone the i7 and as for price a Q9650 is just as cheap as a PII 955 with a better performance rating as well . But remember this is just my opinion on it it is not to say that the PII 955 can not perform or in some cases compete very well NO it does a great job but can not in now way out perform an  i7 this of course is just my opinion on the matter .


----------



## Assassin48 (May 28, 2009)

we all know that i7 is better but costs a little more NEW 
but if you buy used then its a diff story
i have a amd rig
955 
msi gd70
2x 4870x2 <-- i like posting that lol
total for the 955/gd70 was almost $500 new

intel rig 
920 D0
gigabyte Ud5
same video cards 
total 920/gigabyte UD5 was $485 <-- Used 920 new gigabyte 

you can probably go lower if you buy used 955/am3 board
but for this reference you can see both are good boards


----------



## Binge (May 28, 2009)

Binge said:


> God... not another one of these threads...



+1

I honestly can't believe people aren't sick of squacking over this subject.  Where's the guy with the 955, i7 920, and an engineering degree putting up some interesting info?  Who cares that the i7 940 and i7 965 are expensive?  What does it matter that AMD's new processors are inferior for non-gaming computing but add an extra pubic hair's worth of performance behind game-play for a reasonable price?  I can summerize this thread in two words: Civil War.  The blues get on this side of the line and the reds get on the other and let's just have it out.  Try not to lose focus when your net flicks download finishes because this is serious business.  SOMEONE HAS TO BE RIGHT HERE.  I WILL CONVERT ALL THE NON-BELIEVERS INTO A SIMPLE JELLY THAT CONFORMS TO MY PREFERENCE.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

The shot heard around the world ! 

Intel VS AMD !!! KAAABOOOOOOOM !!!!


----------



## Darren (May 28, 2009)

trickson said:


> the facts are that even the PII 955 has a hard time competing with the Q9650 let alone the i7 and as for price a Q9650.



The facts are that the i7 also has _ "a hard time competing with the Q9650"_ as well!



trickson said:


> in some cases compete very well NO it does a great job but can not in now way out perform an  i7 this of course is just my opinion on the matter .



But knowone is arguing that it can "out perform the i7". We I was just merely saying that the Phenom II out prices the i7 




trickson said:


> as for price a Q9650 is just as cheap as a PII 955 with a better performance rating as well.



I thought that in my previous post I demonstrated that the Q9650 was atleast £73.13 more expensive than the Phenom II 955? - Novatech.co.uk prices

Once you factor in that socket AM2+ motherboards are cheaper than socket 775 motherboards the £73 difference will be increase to around a £100 difference whilst loosing your future upgrade path for upgradability on a dead 775 socket.


----------



## trickson (May 28, 2009)

And the WAR continues!

i7 FTW.


----------



## n-ster (May 28, 2009)

In the debate of i7 vs 955, i7 wins hands down for me (price difference way to minimal, hence better price/performance for i7 again depending on what you do, but later on, I am sure the extra power the i7 offers can be used even in gaming)... In the debate of best price/performance gaming CPU/mobo, 720BE wins hands down...

Why would you get an i7 though? if you use stuff that needs a quad-core that performs very well, it would be between 940, 955 and i7 right? i7 beats the other 2 hands down, so if you need maximum performance, i7 is the way to go... if not, IMO 955 is such a small difference in price with the i7 that it is not worth it... so the next option would be obviously the 940...

Why get an i7 if you don't do much of CPU intensive tasks that would require much power? Well, I am getting one, and I don't do much CPU intensive tasks...  Why? First, is my love for the i7  I really want to overclock an i7... just because I have helped others too a bit, and because it passionates me... but why spend practically 200$ more for that (compared to 720BE)? that's like a 70% price increase  well, first and foremost is that IMO, lga 1366 will offer better upgradeability than any PII... Another thing is, X58 mobos can Xfire or SLI... Another reason is that, IMO, when 720BE will be about obsolete in gaming, or at the least, would bottleneck gaming/GPU, well the i7 still won't, and it'll survive longer... I mean by the time it becomes like so, I am sure they can take advantage of the i7 by then... Yes it is a gamble, but IMO it may just be worth it... Again this is my OPINION, and why *I* would get the i7...

Also, a bigger e-penis  not too big, but big enough to be satisfied


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 29, 2009)

ya know what, none of you are right or wrong, everyone has their own opinion on whats better, trying to force it upon each other does however make yall look like fanboys, im not going to name names as that would be unprofessional but this stuff with trying to say this is better or that is better doesnt help matters at these forums, ive seen forums get locked up or shut down for such, because many members took it too far.


----------



## Kenshai (May 29, 2009)

n-ster said:


> In the debate of i7 vs 955, i7 wins hands down for me (price difference way to minimal, hence better price/performance for i7 again depending on what you do, but later on, I am sure the extra power the i7 offers can be used even in gaming)... In the debate of best price/performance gaming CPU/mobo, 720BE wins hands down...
> 
> Why would you get an i7 though? if you use stuff that needs a quad-core that performs very well, it would be between 940, 955 and i7 right? i7 beats the other 2 hands down, so if you need maximum performance, i7 is the way to go... if not, IMO 955 is such a small difference in price with the i7 that it is not worth it... so the next option would be obviously the 940...
> 
> ...



Apparently, they are going to drop the low end i7's, so they don't put up competition for the i5's that will be coming out, so the whole LGA1366 will be more upgradeable point has become null and void. 

Source


----------



## n-ster (May 29, 2009)

Bah, I think we are civilized enough not to go too far...

I still think it is logical to go 720BE for gaming and for the debate PII 955 vs i7 920, I think it is logical to go i7...

By the way, I am in no way a fanboy  EXCEPT maybe a TINY BIT for the i7


----------



## Kenshai (May 29, 2009)

n-ster said:


> Bah, I think we are civilized enough not to go too far...
> 
> I still think it is logical to go 720BE for gaming and for the debate PII 955 vs i7 920, I think it is logical to go i7...
> 
> By the way, I am in no way a fanboy  EXCEPT maybe a TINY BIT for the i7



For the money right now, yes an i7 920 seems a more logical solution. At least compared to the 955.  But that's all this thread is about. 



Way to edit


----------



## Binge (May 29, 2009)

Kenshai said:


> Apparently, they are going to drop the low end i7's, so they don't put up competition for the i5's that will be coming out, so the whole LGA1366 will be more upgradeable point has become null and void.
> 
> Source



#1) You are full of it and that dropping of the low end i7s is complete rumor and even if it is the 920 will still be available for purchase as the W3520.  They aren't going to end the Xeon line of i7 chips, no way no how.

#2) The next high end chip intel is producing will use the LGA 1366 socket.  That's not to say the chipset will stay the same, but they'll still be using the same socket type.

n-ster, I would have expected someone who enjoys the i7 to be above this back and forth.  The more level headed AMD fans are even pointing out redundancy.


----------



## Kenshai (May 29, 2009)

Binge said:


> #1) You are full of it and that dropping of the low end i7s is complete rumor and even if it is the 920 will still be available for purchase as the W3520.  They aren't going to end the Xeon line of i7 chips, no way no how.
> 
> #2) The next high end chip intel is producing will use the LGA 1366 socket.  That's not to say the chipset will stay the same, but they'll still be using the same socket type.
> 
> n-ster, I would have expected someone who enjoys the i7 to be above this back and forth.  The more level headed AMD fans are even pointing out redundancy.



And the fact that the new chip will be expensive compared to the current lineup, leads me to believe for the value, i7 won't be worth it.

Since the performance is supposed to be close, it wouldn't quite make sense to leave both lineup's there, using separate sockets. Would end up being worse off for business I believe


----------



## kid41212003 (May 29, 2009)

Triple channel memory, Hyper Threading, support both SLI and CrossFire are just too awesome for me NOT to go Core i7 platform (I don't care if it gains FPS in games or not).

All benchmarks and tests were done on Windows XP or Vista, and these OSes are having problems with Hyper Threading, this is proven in my tests (Posted somewhere in this forum with screenshots).
Expect Core i7 to terminate Phenom II in all fields with Windows 7.
The value of Core i7 is not only in its Performance, but in the technologies it offered like I said above.
And look at Phenom II, it's just plain old K10 tech, what's new? And the fact is, it needs higher clock to beat the Core i7.

For people who loves new techs like me, going Core i7 is the best option available right now.
If all you do is gaming, and you are careless about new things, an dual-core chip pair with a good vid card is good enough.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 29, 2009)

what amazes me is how y'all can afford this stuff when the rest of the world is going to hell in a handbasket, makes me wonder if y'all are actually buying it with your hard earned cash or getting someone else to buy it for you.


----------



## n-ster (May 29, 2009)

Kenshai said:


> And the fact that the new chip will be expensive compared to the current lineup, leads me to believe for the value, i7 won't be worth it.
> 
> Since the performance is supposed to be close, it wouldn't quite make sense to leave both lineup's there, using separate sockets. Would end up being worse off for business I believe



Indeed, it seems i5's performance may be too similar to the i7's performance, and price will be too... if that's what you meant... But, IMO, if anything, they would make cheaper alternatives to the i5 later on I think... Either way, the lga 1366 platform will most probably stay, and even if most chips are expensive, not all will be... I mean, I think they will do like the i7 and give at least one cheaper alternative that still performs well, since they had a pretty good success with the i7 920...

I may just be saying BS cause I'm tired  but I don't think I am... at least not now 

What surprises me is that some people have 3 extreme intel chips, one being the i7 965, another being the i7 975 and another being the lga 775 one I think (I'm wayyyyyy too tired right now)... and what do that do on top of that? run them at like 4~4.2ghz only >.<


----------



## Binge (May 29, 2009)

Kenshai said:


> And the fact that the new chip will be expensive compared to the current lineup, leads me to believe for the value, i7 won't be worth it as much.
> 
> Since the performance is supposed to be close, it wouldn't quite make sense to leave both lineup's there, using separate sockets. Would end up being worse off for business I believe



What are you saying?  Useing such vague terms only shows a lack of understanding.  The next LGA 1366 is supposed to have more cores with multithreading.  That's about all I have information on.

I think you might be saying that the performance between the i5 and the i7 is supposed to be close.  If you are then you are dead wrong.  The thing you are really missing is that the i7 is a workstation/server chip while the i5 is supposed to be mainstream.  They aren't going to tell people who are interested in getting a workstation computer and buying their chipset that there are simply no more low end/low power solutions like the 12 variations of the Xeon chips that put off as little heat as 65W.  That would be stupid to put it into production and development then scrap the whole project just because something with lower performance is coming with a different socket.

Would you at least think for yourself before hanging on hearsay from Taiwanese motherboard "guys".  That's as credible as the source is and frankly it says nothing about the low end Xeons being phased out so I'm not worried at all.  They cost the same at provantage.com.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 29, 2009)

1366 is a Namesake for the Multi CPU Markets, just the Current lineup we have is the 1 way system, wouldnt be surprised if a Skulltrail 2 setup appears which is just a overglorified server setup.


----------



## Binge (May 29, 2009)

1366 xeons are the current workstation cpus for high end macs also.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 29, 2009)

so i would assume that Mac is totally X86 now, because they used to be RISC PPC instruction set.


----------



## Binge (May 29, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> so i would assume that Mac is totally X86 now, because they used to be RISC PPC instruction set.



They have been for about 2 years now.


----------



## kid41212003 (May 29, 2009)

And Apple does offer 8 Cores version (2 Xeon Nehalem Chips).


----------



## n-ster (May 29, 2009)

Dual-sockets look sooo cool  and the practically obligatory 6 sticks of RAM too


----------



## Binge (May 29, 2009)

Yeah and they don't use W3575/W3580 unless they're special ordered.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 29, 2009)

well for me Ill probably be building 2 machines, one now and 1 later, the first will basically be Chicken Patties Machine with a few differences and the other will probably be a Phenom 2 Setup.


----------



## Binge (May 29, 2009)

CP did make a beautiful rig.  What about it has you particularly drawn to his setup?  EVGA fan, or is it how he mounted his water?


----------



## n-ster (May 29, 2009)

I wish I had money for 2 good setups lol


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 29, 2009)

Binge said:


> CP did make a beautiful rig.  What about it has you particularly drawn to his setup?  EVGA fan, or is it how he mounted his water?



The Motherboard, I wont be building both at the same time, i will have the core i7 built then maybe a year later the Phenom 2 as a Spare since i cant do anything with my current machine as of playing around with it (too hot as of Motherboard)


----------



## trickson (May 29, 2009)

LOL AMAZING ! 
I think that the i7 wins this WAR so lets pull out the Q9650 !!! 

Q9650 FTW !!!


----------



## n-ster (May 29, 2009)

trickson said:


> LOL AMAZING !
> I think that the i7 wins this WAR so lets pull out the Q9650 !!!
> 
> Q9650 FTW !!!



Where did that come from


----------



## erocker (May 29, 2009)

Serious thread needs serious discussion.  Any more flaming, flame-bait or any other nonsense isn't going to be tolerated.  If you have made your point in this thread, go find another thread.  This thread should just be closed anyways, but since I can't close it I'll just tell you all to behave or get infractions.


----------



## Mort (Dec 6, 2010)

Hello everyone,

I must say that it is very interesting what you guys are saying. I have read this topic beacause I am thinking about buying intel i7 (it will be my first Intel CPU ever). But in Poland things look different. 
For example prices:
Phenom II 955 - ~160$ (480PLN)
Phenom II 955 - ~174$ (520PLN)
Intel i7 920 - ~384$ (1150PLN)

So it is quite obvious that Intel is twice the price of AMD. Thats a curious detail

But I am still thinking to buy i7 but i7 950. It is a little cheaper - ~330$ (990PLN).
Please tell me is it a good choice?

PS I am sorry to write in such old topic - but in Poland things are going slower

Best Regards,
Marek


----------



## rahulyo (Dec 8, 2010)

Mort said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I must say that it is very interesting what you guys are saying. I have read this topic beacause I am thinking about buying intel i7 (it will be my first Intel CPU ever). But in Poland things look different.
> For example prices:
> ...



Save money. Go with amd x4 965.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 8, 2010)

Mort said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I must say that it is very interesting what you guys are saying. I have read this topic beacause I am thinking about buying intel i7 (it will be my first Intel CPU ever). But in Poland things look different.
> For example prices:
> ...





rahulyo said:


> Save money. Go with amd x4 965.



 waita bring up a year and a half old thread :shadedshu


----------

