# My Intel Core i7 and Phenom II 940 Comparison



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

Well now that I own both CPU's I figured I'd do a comparison between the both.  I am only doing 3dmark CPU tests, and wprime comparisons.  I dont have much time on my hands to do more benchmarks and these are the ones I have my hands on now.  So lets see.


*PLEASE NOTE HYPER THREADING IS OFF ON THE I7.  THE COMPARISON IS JUST TO SEE HOW BOTH CPU'S PERFORM CLOCK FOR CLOCK.  HYPER THREADING WOULD MAKE THINGS EVEN MORE UN EVEN.

ALSO THE I7 USES DDR3, HOWEVER THE PHENOM IS RUNNING WINDOWS XP WHICH ALLOWS BETTER PERFORMANCE THAT THE OS ON THE I7 WHICH IS WINDOWS 7.  ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT A FAIR COMPARISON I TRIED TO MAKE IT AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE.*


So far we have these results:


*wPrime  Default Clocks.*

Core i7 @ 2.6 GHz - 12.109
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0 GHz - 13.094

*3mark 06 CPU test default clocks*

Core i7 @ 2.6 GHz - 4251 points
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0 GHz - 4512 points

*wPrime both at 3.0 GHz*
Core i7 @ 3.0 GHz - 10.61
Phenom II 940 @ 3.0 GHz - 13.094

*3dmark 06 CPU Test both at 3.0 Ghz*
Core i7 - 4793
Ph II 940 - 4512

*wPrime 3.4 GHz*
Core i7 - 9.376
Ph II 940 - 11.515

*3dMark 06 CPU test at 3.4 GHz*
Core i7 - 5442
Ph II 940 - 4990

*wPrime 3.6 GHz*
Core i7 - 8.826
Ph II 940 - 10.968

*3dMark 06 CPU test 3.6 GHz*
Core i7 - 5706
PH II 940 - 5240

*wPrime 3.8 GHz*
Core i7 - 8.343
PH II 940 - 10.344

*3dMark 06 CPU Test 3.8 GHz*
Core i7 - 5931
PH II 940 - 5407

*Everest CPU Photoworxx benchmark*
i7 4GHz HT on - 41132
i7 3.65 GHz HT off - 34943
PH II 940 - 24424

*Fritz Chess Benchmark*
i7 4GHz HT on - Relative Speed 29.90 / Kilo Nodes per second 14351
i7 .365 GHz HT off - Relative Speed 22.05 / Kilo Nodes per second 10583
Ph II 940 - Relative Speed 18.32 / Kilo Nodes per second 8795


*Geekbench*
i7 4GHz HT on - 10353
i7 3.65 GHz HT off - 7554
PH II 940 - 6604

*x264 benchmark*
i7 4GHz HT on - http://img.techpowerup.org/090330/Capture145.jpg

i7 3.65 GHz HT off -http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1289390&postcount=84
PH II 940 - http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1289390&postcount=84


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

First up was a round of Wprime with both CPUs untouched.

Intel








AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

3dmark 06 default clocks

CPU score 

Intel 4251 points

AMD 4512 points

Intel






AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

core i7 at 3.0 Ghz wPrime


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

Core i7 @ 3.0 Ghz 3dmark Cpu test


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

I will continue this tomorrow.  I will target clocks like 3.2 GHz, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8 GHz and if possible to get AMD rig stable at 4ghz, then I will do runs at 4ghz as well.


----------



## The Haunted (Mar 24, 2009)

Nice! I can't wait to see the 4ghz results


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

The Haunted said:


> Nice! I can't wait to see the 4ghz results



my daily settings on my i7 are 4ghz, Just dont know if I can get the PHenom II that high to do the runs.  I'll try tomorrow or when I get there.


----------



## Fatal (Mar 24, 2009)

memory plays a big role and looks like that DDR3 is some great stuff. the timings on your AMD can be tighten up a bit but dont look like it would help much. Sweet comparison looking forward to more.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 24, 2009)

Fatal said:


> memory plays a big role and looks like that DDR3 is some great stuff. the timings on your AMD can be tighten up a bit but dont look like it would help much. Sweet comparison looking forward to more.



I know, but hey what can I do about it, I don't have an AM3 rig yet.  However I am running my DDR3 at a lower divider than what it runs at to make things more even.  Ill be doing some more runs later today, just got home from work, need some rest


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

wPrime at 3.4 GHz

Intel





AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

3dmark 06 cpu test 3.4 GHz

Intel




AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

wPrime 3.6 GHz

Intel




AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

3dMark 06 CPU test 3.6 GHz

Intel




AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

wPrime 3.8 GHz

Intel




AMD


----------



## Melvis (Mar 25, 2009)

Good benchmarking  its good to see these sorta results, real time results. These results i would believe more then some sites that do tests 

The AMD falls behind in most tests but the fact is that its not by alot at all, im impressed on how well that Phenom II is performing 

Keep up the good work


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Good benchmarking  its good to see these sorta results, real time results. These results i would believe more then some sites that do tests
> 
> The AMD falls behind in most tests but the fact is that its not by alot at all, im impressed on how well that Phenom II is performing
> 
> Keep up the good work



thanks bro.  Yeah the Phenom II is not bad at all bro, I love it.  You do have to keep something in mind.  Phenom II is running on xp and i7 is running on W7.  Although W7 is great, XP will give the i7 better performance as I have already tried it.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

3dmark 06 CPU test 3.8 GHz

Intel




AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

Ok this is as far as my Phenom II will go stable for now without any tweaking.

If there is any comparison that you guys want to see with a different benchmark, just let me know.

If you want to see these two systems in action with another benchmark post up which benchmark, how do you want me to run the CPU's and a download link to the benchmark.


Any comments or feedback on this test?


----------



## Melvis (Mar 25, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> thanks bro.  Yeah the Phenom II is not bad at all bro, I love it.  You do have to keep something in mind.  Phenom II is running on xp and i7 is running on W7.  Although W7 is great, XP will give the i7 better performance as I have already tried it.



Know Problem dude  ahhh ok i see fair enough, that's understandable, so im guessing the Phenom II doesn't bench as good in W7? My next OS will be W7 id say with a Phenom so be good to see.

Anyway good stuff


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Know Problem dude  ahhh ok i see fair enough, that's understandable, so im guessing the Phenom II doesn't bench as good in W7? My next OS will be W7 id say with a Phenom so be good to see.
> 
> Anyway good stuff



W7 is just a much more resourceful OS.  W7 is much faster than vista, but XP blows them away as far as benchmarking.

But W7 is very good, i've been using it for a couple of months now and I love it.  BUt my Phenom Rig is just a benching rig, so thats why I went with XP.  My daily computer is my i7


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 25, 2009)

Do you have any games?


----------



## Supreme0verlord (Mar 25, 2009)

Hmmm, how about F@H SMP performance? Although that's dependent on which WU you get so idk about that.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Mar 25, 2009)

Good stuff, like I been saying all along, the 940 hangs, but when it comes to HT it gets it's doors blown off. Ty for these results!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Good stuff, like I been saying all along, the 940 hangs, but when it comes to HT it gets it's doors blown off. Ty for these results!



in case you didnt notice HT was off on the intel, just in case.  with HT on it wouldnt be fair.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

well like I said if you guys want some benchmarks, link me to them.  I'll try my best to run them.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 25, 2009)

Great writeup chicken patty and yes I agree XP is the best for benchmarking numbers, I wonder how the pII would perform in w7 or even vista vs w7.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Great writeup chicken patty and yes I agree XP is the best for benchmarking numbers, I wonder how the pII would perform in w7 or even vista vs w7.



I would think the #'s would be more in favor of intel.  But then again, the i7 is using DDR3 so I guess running the Phenom II on Xp makes up for the lack of DDR3.


----------



## Meltdown (Mar 25, 2009)

Real good stuff Cp would like to see some vantage or 3marks06 comparison with same card, but that might be a lot work ? maybe not you do have two 4870 1g cards if you had time that would be cool.  My interest is for games that what do in my off time. 

Nice work CP thanks for sharing


----------



## kid41212003 (Mar 25, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> in case you didnt notice HT was off on the intel, just in case.  with HT on it wouldnt be fair.



In technology world, there isn't a world called "fair".

After all, you can't have a fair fight, because AMD is not Intel, AMD can't use Intel's technologies. What I mean is, when will we see a AMD cpu with hyper threading?

And if you say that is unfair, then I say it's unfair when you didn't use the feature that the best Core i7 has to offer, which is Hyper Threading.


Beside, unlocked edition vs locked edition, Core i7 920 is the slowest one in its cpu series, while PII 940 BE is the fastest in its cpu series. Core i7 uses DDR3, while your Phenom II uses DDR2.

I mean no offends, but using the word fair in this case is not exactly fit...

You just need to max out everything of each setup (no matter at what clock, it's still unfair), and bench it that way, because it's already unfair since the start... (both setup is not similar).


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> In technology world, there isn't a world called "fair".
> 
> After all, you can't have a fair fight, because AMD is not Intel, AMD can't use Intel's technologies. What I mean is, when will we see a AMD cpu with hyper threading?
> 
> ...



I know what you mean, but since we already know nothing is fair, why leave such a comment.  Many people wanted to see this including myself, and at least I shared since it was not done before, at least as far as I know on TPU.

What do you mean by max out anyways, highest clock?

BTW it is just a comparison bro, doesn't have to be fair.  Notice on the post I linked you below, I said I even ran the Memory divider on the i7 lower to make it more "EVEN".


http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1278694&postcount=10


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

Meltdown said:


> Real good stuff Cp would like to see some vantage or 3marks06 comparison with same card, but that might be a lot work ? maybe not you do have two 4870 1g cards if you had time that would be cool.  My interest is for games that what do in my off time.
> 
> Nice work CP thanks for sharing



yeah bro i thought of that, but I would have to take a card out etc.  If i have the time i'll do it one day, but remember I have xp on my phenom rig, vantage will not be possible.


----------



## Meltdown (Mar 25, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> yeah bro i thought of that, but I would have to take a card out etc.  If i have the time i'll do it one day, but remember I have xp on my phenom rig, vantage will not be possible.



CP thats cool, i should have thought of that vantage=w7 or vista  i have both xp & w7 are you getting better clocks in xp ? maybe i will try xp in the morning


----------



## Meltdown (Mar 25, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> In technology world, there isn't a world called "fair".
> 
> After all, you can't have a fair fight, because AMD is not Intel, AMD can't use Intel's technologies. What I mean is, when will we see a AMD cpu with hyper threading?
> 
> ...



Well i do understand what you are saying in tech terms we all now that i7 kick but, top dog and so on 

but in price range i think his comparison is fair.  With the slow economy and the tight wallets,
so this comparison could help those that dont have the fat wallet of course i am speaking for my self  

by the way great sig


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 25, 2009)

thanx "chicken patty" for this tests , really very cool tests clear many confusing things in the mind , for me i availing from this thread , like for me i see phenom II good for priced but corei7 have better performance in games , but with applications and design programsand also work station programs phenom II look better


----------



## silkstone (Mar 25, 2009)

Nice thorough tests patty - well done. I've been wondering about the performance difference for a while even tho i'm not going to upgrade any time soon.


----------



## r9 (Mar 25, 2009)

10-25% performance difference. But HT should be on IMO.


----------



## Binge (Mar 25, 2009)

It should stay off.  It proves that the lowest end i7 still has a 10-15% lead core for core & clock for clock.  Also most problems with games are when HT is on.  HT off is much more suited for practical comparisons.


----------



## Meltdown (Mar 25, 2009)

Binge said:


> It should stay off.  It proves that the lowest end i7 still has a 10-15% lead core for core & clock for clock.  Also most problems with games are when HT is on.  HT off is much more suited for practical comparisons.


Well said Binge if only i could say so few words and mean so mucth


----------



## r9 (Mar 25, 2009)

My point is when HT improves perf. should be On when decreases to be OFF. In other words both systems to be max optimized. If it is slowing games than it is fine by me to be set to OFF.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 25, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> well like I said if you guys want some benchmarks, link me to them.  I'll try my best to run them.



If, with mem dividers you can get the ramspeeds pretty close to one another with the same CPU speed migh I suggest SM2.... which tests CPU number crunching, HDD access and mem bandwidth all in one.


----------



## breakfromyou (Mar 25, 2009)

holy crap, i didn't know it was that close!

time to upgrade from a 720 to a 955! well, later this month.

Anyone want a slightly used and possibly degraded Q6700? It's seen -70c just once!


----------



## Meltdown (Mar 25, 2009)

breakfromyou said:


> holy crap, i didn't know it was that close!
> 
> time to upgrade from a 720 to a 955! well, later this month.
> 
> Anyone want a slightly used and possibly degraded Q6700? It's seen -70c just once!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 25, 2009)

thanks guys for all the comments.  Really the Phenom II is not a bad performer.  In games however they do perform very close to i7's.  over this weekend I will take one card out of my i7 rig and run it on my Phenom II rig.  See how both CPUs perform.  I will however most likely Just run 3dmark.  The i7 should score higher, but we can compare the sm1 and sm2 scores instead of overall score.  See how well each CPU feeds the video card


----------



## Meltdown (Mar 26, 2009)

cant wait sounds good CP


----------



## 3dsage (Mar 27, 2009)

Hey dude can you run this .x264 HD video encoding Benchy, with your I7 and 940 @ 3.8GHZ, if possible? and a max OC of your I7, I wanna see some Brute force  action xD

Looking forward to the results

Link to benchmark
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520#data


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 27, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> In technology world, there isn't a world called "fair".
> 
> After all, you can't have a fair fight, because AMD is not Intel, AMD can't use Intel's technologies. What I mean is, when will we see a AMD cpu with hyper threading?
> 
> ...



 holy crap man... that is very true and undisputable.

@OP great thread!  what about Max 24/7 OC for both benches? because if the 940 isnt too much slower, I might save $200 and go for that platform (after I read your 940 review).

EDIT:
Also how hard is it to hit 4GHz with the i7? Would you say that the average i7 920 can do 4GHz under water?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 27, 2009)

3dsage said:


> Hey dude can you run this .x264 HD video encoding Benchy, with your I7 and 940 @ 3.8GHZ, if possible? and a max OC of your I7, I wanna see some Brute force  action xD
> 
> Looking forward to the results
> 
> ...




thanks, i'll try to do that before the weekend.  I will also pull out one card from my i7 rig and put it on the phenom II rig so i'll probably do all that the same day.



phanbuey said:


> holy crap man... that is very true and undisputable.
> 
> @OP great thread!  what about Max 24/7 OC for both benches? because if the 940 isnt too much slower, I might save $200 and go for that platform (after I read your 940 review).
> 
> ...


4ghz with the i7 is doable on air, but indeed very easy to hit with water.


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 27, 2009)

did you guys know that AMD rulez, lol


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 27, 2009)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> did you guys know that AMD rulez, lol



I am not an intel fanboy, as I do have both Intel and AMD.  I love both manufacturers, but as per the results achieved in these comparisons, your above statement seems to be off.


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 27, 2009)

just muckin around, by the way man, you got 2 awesome rigs! 

 You wanna swap, lol!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 27, 2009)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> just muckin around, by the way man, you got 2 awesome rigs!
> 
> You wanna swap, lol!



no thanks.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 27, 2009)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> did you guys know that AMD rulez, lol



Sniff Sniff...................


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 27, 2009)

Two things for performance comparison.

1./ HT should be ON, IMO, otherwise you are NOT showing what the chip is capable of
2./ You need to set threadcount in wPrime to 32. The default of 4 FAILS to show true performance of a 6, 8, 12, 16 "core" or "thread" CPU

=======================================

I've done some comparisons for you on Dual Xeon E5420 STOCK (ie 2.5Ghz, 8 real cores)

wPrime = 9.203 secs = (= 23.000 secs divided by Ghz)
CPU score on 3Dmark06 = 5636 points (= 2250 per Ghz)


----------



## Binge (Mar 27, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Two things for performance comparison.
> 
> 1./ HT should be ON, IMO, otherwise you are NOT showing what the chip is capable of
> 2./ You need to set threadcount in wPrime to 32. The default of 4 FAILS to show true performance of a 6, 8, 12, 16 "core" or "thread" CPU
> ...



That's very short sighted.  I have posted before in defense of his testing methodology but here it comes again.  HT is OFF because he is comparing the cores.  We all know what HT does, but when it just comes down to which chip is the better quad core clock for clock then it shows a different kind of strength than HT VS non-HT.  That to me and every sane person is more of an apples vs oranges instead of coke vs pepsi comparison.

HT off is also how a number of users will get a 4.0GHz overclock with the i7 because not every chip is capable of 4.0+ with HT on.  Turning HT off can also give more life to the processor by reducing temperatures.  To be blunt... it's short sighted of you to expect CP to give people information they already have.  It's much better he gives them a practical view of both chips instead of info people can find in run of the mill reviews.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 27, 2009)

Binge said:


> That's very short sighted.  I have posted before in defense of his testing methodology but here it comes again.  HT is OFF because he is comparing the cores.  We all know what HT does, but when it just comes down to which chip is the better quad core clock for clock then it shows a different kind of strength than HT VS non-HT.  That to me and every sane person is more of an apples vs oranges instead of coke vs pepsi comparison.
> 
> HT off is also how a number of users will get a 4.0GHz overclock with the i7 because not every chip is capable of 4.0+ with HT on.  Turning HT off can also give more life to the processor by reducing temperatures.  To be blunt... it's short sighted of you to expect CP to give people information they already have.  It's much better he gives them a practical view of both chips instead of info people can find in run of the mill reviews.



THank you Binge it couldn't have been said better.

However, we all know that with HT on the comparison is lop sodded.  Thats why I did it with HT off to see what CPU is really quicker clock for clock.  If I turn HT on, then everybody will complain as the results are not pretty for the AMD if that was the case.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 27, 2009)

Well, you could have said it in a less rude way. 

If you want to compare THREAD performance (per thread) then yes, turn off HT. But if you want to build a one chip PC and you are deciding based on performance ability, then to suggest handicapping one processor is the right way of doing it, is, IMO, asinine.



> Well now that I own both CPU's I figured I'd do a comparison between the both. I am only doing 3dmark CPU tests, and wprime comparisons. I dont have much time on my hands to do more benchmarks and these are the ones I have my hands on now. So lets see.



CP did not say he was running a "one hand tied behind the back" test. All I did was chip in some comparable performance stats. Only trying to be helpful. Gee.

PS. Why is CP running three channel DDR3 against two channel DDR2? If you want *apples vs. apples*, then for heavens sake, pull a stick out of the i7 system.



> THank you Binge it couldn't have been said better.


Oh, great. What is this? The Bert and Mary show? Super-frigging-califragilisticexpialidocious.

PPS. Run the wPrime benchmarks again with a higher thread count. Check your answers.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 28, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Well, you could have said it in a less rude way.
> 
> If you want to compare THREAD performance (per thread) then yes, turn off HT. But if you want to build a one chip PC and you are deciding based on performance ability, then to suggest handicapping one processor is the right way of doing it, is, IMO, asinine.
> 
> ...




I will say only one thing.  Your post was ridiculous.  Sorry but true.  As far as DDR3, the Phenom II rig is running on XP while my i7 is running on W7.  THe advantages of the DDR3 are taken away by using a much faster OS on the AMD rig.  IF you havent seen the difference I suggest you try it out yourself.


----------



## douglatins (Mar 29, 2009)

I would like to see real world benchmarking, IMO Crysis... Hehe games asktualy. With same GPU config


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 29, 2009)

douglatins said:


> I would like to see real world benchmarking, IMO Crysis... Hehe games asktualy. With same GPU config



I will try to do some 3dmark runs with my video card in the AMD computer.  However haven't had much time and I gotta take apart the rig and swap cards and stuff.

I'll try to get some more real life benchmarks in but I don't promise anything.

When I say do some 3dmark runs, is just to compare sm1 and sm2 scores, see how each CPU works with the card.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 29, 2009)

CP, before you "unbuild" your rigs, could you kindly run the following. They are EXTREMELY quick to do. It will take you less than 30 secs per bench.

1./ GeekBench
2./ Fritzchess bench
3./ Everest 5 CPu PhotoWorxx bench

Thank you kindly!

PS. If you want to see if the memory setup if "fair" across machines, use

1./ Sciencemark Membench, or
2./ Everest Memory and Cache benchmark tool

Just check the "main memory" bandwidths to see if there is comparable performance.  If the results are way off due to tripple channel, then the Intel gets an "unfair" advantage due to cache pre-fetchers working much faster... which has nothing to do with the core technology, on the tripple channel... which I think you wanted to exclude from your analysis.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 29, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> CP, before you "unbuild" your rigs, could you kindly run the following. They are EXTREMELY quick to do. It will take you less than 30 secs per bench.
> 
> 1./ GeekBench
> 2./ Fritzchess bench
> ...



ill run them tonight.  Can you please be so kind and just link me to benchmarks 1 and 2 please.  I have everest already.


----------



## n-ster (Mar 29, 2009)

I feel some tension around here xD 

anyways, great benchmarks CP!

here:
GeekBench
Fritzchess

Not sure if Fritz is the right version but oh well, just trying to help


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 29, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> ill run them tonight.  Can you please be so kind and just link me to benchmarks 1 and 2 please.  I have everest already.



*Careful with EVEREST* - They have changed the benchmarking "code" due to i7 compatibility. Results from v4 are not valid for v5. Please use v5 Everest.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 29, 2009)

Fair comparison would be to test the platforms in the best they have to offer, in identical software environments. 

HTT should be enabled for the Core i7, it should be given 3 or 6 GB of DDR3-1333 MHz memory.

The Phenom II X4 940 should be given 2 or 4 GB of DDR2-1066 MHz memory, as that's the fastest processor by AMD at the moment, and that's the highest memory standard it is specified to run.

Both platforms should run on the same OS (with the same Service pack (if any), updates, etc.) 

In pursuit of making things fair, you're giving Phenom II the unfair advantage by crippling the Core i7's features (disabling HTT) and making it handle a resource-heavier OS.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 29, 2009)

^^ all quite correct btarunr, but these guys are trying to do a "core-core" as STEP ONE of their scientific approach.  Then, STEP TWO, just add the thrid channel of DDR3 and turn on the HT to watch the nitrox effect of i7 architecture.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 29, 2009)

I jumped from post 1 to 54 and my post. I had expected some more clarity in post 1, which typically indexes the discussion. Doing a step by step comparison is fine, though it still does not warrant giving the two dissimilar software environments.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 29, 2009)

This just shows how well AMD did with these chips using existing DDR2 and existing motherboard tech. If you have a older system from AMD this is a hell of a upgrade. However, intel also came through with new cutting edge stuff so it's a win win.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 29, 2009)

here is some quick runs with the benchmarks that lemonadesoda requested.  This is my daily settings of my i7 rig.  Just for now so you guys have something to look at.

I'll do the comparison with HT off agaist the Phenom II tonight.


----------



## n-ster (Mar 30, 2009)

Thanks a lot for those  I was wondering what those scores would be with YOUR daily setting!


----------



## Damian^ (Mar 30, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> in case you didnt notice HT was off on the intel, just in case.  with HT on it wouldn't be fair.


Why not? When it comes to testing/comparing its best to test _as is_ especially if its clock for clock. Your results are a bit misleading. 

The average user normally has HT on. But i guess on special occasions if one does turn it off then thank you for the time you took to do this comparison. 

EDIT: Ehh looks like some people have said what i thought too, I usually just discuss with OP not others my bad.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 30, 2009)

Damian^ said:


> Why not? When it comes to testing/comparing its best to test _as is_ especially if its clock for clock. Your results are a bit misleading.
> 
> The average user normally has HT on. But i guess on special occasions if one does turn it off then thank you for the time you took to do this comparison.
> 
> EDIT: Ehh looks like some people have said what i thought too, I usually just discuss with OP not others my bad.



you usually discuss with OP?  Whats that?


Well my comparison is not what each CPU can do to its max, just clock for clock with the Phenom.  If I have HT on, everybody will complain that the intel beat it because HT was on.  So I disabled it.

This is not a test about what the i7 can do, for that we have the i7 discussion thread where you post your results and such.  If the AMD doesn't have Hyper Threading, I don't think it is fair that HT should be on when benching the i7 against the Phenom II.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 30, 2009)

Wow. That i7 machine SMOKES those benchmarks. Very nice.  I'm very interested to see how HT affects those results.

I would be surprised if Il Phenom comes anywhere close... but let's see!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 30, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Wow. That i7 machine SMOKES those benchmarks. Very nice.  I'm very interested to see how HT affects those results.
> 
> I would be surprised if Il Phenom comes anywhere close... but let's see!



Sorry bro, I couldnt do it last night.

I've been in and out of hospital with health issues lately bro, lets say the past two or three weeks.  I'll get those results for you soon bro.  While i'm at it i'll also do the encoding benchmark 3dsage I believe wanted me to do.  STill owe him that.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 30, 2009)

Take it easy. Health should always come first.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 30, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Take it easy. Health should always come first.



nothing serious.  But its just robbed a lot of time bro.   I'll get those runs done, just give me a bit.


----------



## 3dsage (Mar 30, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Take it easy. Health should always come first.



Yeah dude Take it easy for real, Hope All turns out well man.  Whatever it is thats plaguing you CP, just be positive and crank up your internal voltage


----------



## n-ster (Mar 31, 2009)

Yea OC those thing that make your protective system xD But seriously, watch out for yourself! Oh and I can't wait to see more too and SOON! only excuse you can give is with a doctor's note!  jkjk

P.S: Doctor's Tip: Chicken Patties aren't very good for your health when abused.... so is OCing your heart!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

you guys crack me up   Thanks for the tips guys, much appreciated.   THats why I love TPU.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

here is the benchmark for 3dsage, the encoding one or whatever it is   This is HT on my daily settings.

HT off comparison with the Phenom coming up next.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

Chess benchmark

3.65 GHz both CPU's

Intel




AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

Geekbench

3.65GHz both CPUs

Intel




AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

Everest 5 CPU Photoworxx benchmark

Intel




AMD


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

X264 Benchmark


Intel




AMD


----------



## 3dsage (Mar 31, 2009)

The I7 is a complete ass whooping robot,
 Was that .x264 run with HT on the I7?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

3dsage said:


> The I7 is a complete ass whooping robot,
> Was that .x264 run with HT on the I7?



I did HT on my daily settings, and then at 3.65 GHz HT off to compare with the pHenom.  Check again, first post was updated as well.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Mar 31, 2009)

> Everest CPU Photoworxx benchmark
> i7 4GHz HT on - 41132
> i7 3.65 GHz HT off - 34943
> PH II 940 - 24424
> ...



HOLY SMOKE!


----------



## Mike0409 (Mar 31, 2009)

Wow, Great find's with these bench's!


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> HOLY SMOKE!



  that means?


----------



## Chicken Patty (Mar 31, 2009)

I am going to run the 3dmark CPU test, and wprime at 3.8 GHz with the i7 and hyper threading on.  To see the difference since I ran it with it off.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Apr 1, 2009)

wow you come with more tests
honestly i see some good tests and reviews in tomshardware but they should see this thread


----------



## demonkevy666 (Apr 9, 2009)

hey chicken what where the NB speed for each CPU ?
and next time I would try to keep QPI and HT at lower speed since HT can't really reach over 2.6ghz. and QPI seems to fly past 2.6ghz up to 4.0ghz


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 9, 2009)

demonkevy666 said:


> hey chicken what where the NB speed for each CPU ?
> and next time I would try to keep QPI and HT at lower speed since HT can't really reach over 2.6ghz. and QPI seems to fly past 2.6ghz up to 4.0ghz



I can't keep the QPI lower than what it is.  Default is 18x and since its not an unlocked multi I cant overclock unless I raise the BCLK.  meaning the QPI will go higher regardless.


The NB speed I honestly don't remember.  I'll tell you now though, even if the AMD had a lower NB which most likely it did, Results won't change much bro.  This i7 crap is a freaking monster bro.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 13, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> I can't keep the QPI lower than what it is.  Default is 18x and since its not an unlocked multi I cant overclock unless I raise the BCLK.  meaning the QPI will go higher regardless.
> 
> 
> The NB speed I honestly don't remember.  I'll tell you now though, even if the AMD had a lower NB which most likely it did, Results won't change much bro.  This i7 crap is a freaking monster bro.



hey would you mind adding a cost summary for each on the first post? cpu/mem/mobo it would complete the review

edit: just read that and it sounded completely lazy lol

Core i7
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202
288.99$
not sure what evga x58 you used so it's either
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188039
299.99$
or 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188046
259.99$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231237
136.99$ 

comes to
USD 725.97$ or 685.97$ depending on the board.

Phenom II X4
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471
214.99$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136056
149.99$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148210
42.99$

comes to 
USD 407.97$

as I said above it would help complete the review.


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

Honestly he could have gotten similar results with a lower quality i7 system.  i7920s can be found for $240... ddr3 for $50 for a 3gb set... gigabyte mobo for $200


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 13, 2009)

Binge said:


> Honestly he could have gotten similar results with a lower quality i7 system.  i7920s can be found for $240... ddr3 for $50 for a 3gb set... gigabyte mobo for $200



true but actually I thought the price difference would be larger. you'd be surprized how little 280$ matters to someone looking for high performance. I mean shoot look how many peopel pay 500$ for a single gpu. 

and yeah it all can be found cheaper, you can get a 790 board for 100$ too. but for the setup used here, those are the prices. which it isn't that bad of a difference for the performance you recieve.


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

He didn't pay those prices for that gear, and in some cases spent a lot more/a lot less for the parts.  In all... I don't like the price comparison.  A lot of the time i7 is more expensive because of what brand name a buyer chooses, and not the performance he is getting for the extra dollar.  System Viper has clocked higher than anyone else on these forums with 4 cores 8 threads on a motherboard that is less expensive than what anyone else who posts regularly on TPU uses.  Fitseries proved that 1066MHz ram can easily be overclocked to 1600MHz cas 8 without much trouble to keep ram below $100.  I'm just making a note of this because of the state of the economy.  To me it's much more sweet to get the performance of the i7 at a price well below the starting premium.  The things people really should be paying for is 2000MHz+ ram, D0 chips, and boards with flexible bios/power options.


----------



## mav2000 (Apr 13, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> Everest 5 CPU Photoworxx benchmark
> 
> AMD
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090330/Capture037.jpg



Hey there seems to be some issue with that PII score there, I just ran photoworks on everest at 3 Ghz on my 720BE with 4 cores on and I got a score of 26296, dont know why the difference. Would higher ram speeds make a lot of difference? Am running my ram at 1000 Mhz.


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

Of course ram would make a huge difference.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 13, 2009)

yogurt_21 said:


> hey would you mind adding a cost summary for each on the first post? cpu/mem/mobo it would complete the review
> 
> edit: just read that and it sounded completely lazy lol
> 
> ...



I wouldn't mind doing this at all, trust me, but its pointless.  People can go back and forth about this all day.I spent $720 on board/cpu/ram.  I could have saved money getting a cheaper board and RAM, and it could have even ran better.  But back then nobody new and had the knowledge we have now about this maturing platform.  Really I don't see a reason why not to go i7 nowadays.  Im sure binge will agree with me.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 13, 2009)

mav2000 said:


> Hey there seems to be some issue with that PII score there, I just ran photoworks on everest at 3 Ghz on my 720BE with 4 cores on and I got a score of 26296, dont know why the difference. Would higher ram speeds make a lot of difference? Am running my ram at 1000 Mhz.



THANKS FOR SPOTTING THAT OUT, DONT KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM CAN BE.  wHAT WAS YOUR RAM RUNNING AT?


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 14, 2009)

Binge said:


> He didn't pay those prices for that gear, and in some cases spent a lot more/a lot less for the parts.  In all... I don't like the price comparison.  A lot of the time i7 is more expensive because of what brand name a buyer chooses, and not the performance he is getting for the extra dollar.  System Viper has clocked higher than anyone else on these forums with 4 cores 8 threads on a motherboard that is less expensive than what anyone else who posts regularly on TPU uses.  Fitseries proved that 1066MHz ram can easily be overclocked to 1600MHz cas 8 without much trouble to keep ram below $100.  I'm just making a note of this because of the state of the economy.  To me it's much more sweet to get the performance of the i7 at a price well below the starting premium.  The things people really should be paying for is 2000MHz+ ram, D0 chips, and boards with flexible bios/power options.



of couser you can always get cheaper components and overclock them. just the same as for memory if I were going ddr3 I'd choose

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231225 something like that you'd be surprised at how well lover volt memory can tighten timings from stock. 

then for mobo prolly something like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131359 which shaves 80-100$ off of the price while doubling the memory. (which btw the memory estimate may be off significantly now looking) dropping the price differrence between the two to 200$ obviously the cpu price difference isn't the issue, it's the motherboards mainly. 

and yeah you can even go down to 40$ if you want a 3gb kit of ddr3 and overclock it. making it similar in price to 1066 ddr2 (which you could go down to ddr2 800 and clock that as well though the price jump is not as significant). and you can go to the zotac mobo for 199$ making it a 120$ difference which is minimal when you think about it.  I'm merely looking from a consumer standpoint, when I read a review I like to know the cost of the hardware reviewed. 

the point is to help me decide which way I want to go (not that I'm unhappy with my q6700's performance, it's the p35 chipset and 9600gt I have beef with currently lol) While the performance i7 offers is a big jump from my current rig, how much is that worth and how much can I recoup from part sales? and is it worth it in the long run? 

theoretical questions sure as with my current situation due to the economy (as bnge brought up is not is such a good state) I'm not really ready to buy much of anything right now. But I will be in the future and I like how this review was far more practical than others I've seen. Which means I may come back to it when i do decide to buy.


----------



## mav2000 (Apr 14, 2009)

My ram is running at 1000 Mhz. Here is a screenie for u...I am running the cpu at 3 Ghz, thats why I am a bit confused abt this.


----------



## Chicken Patty (Apr 14, 2009)

mav2000 said:


> My ram is running at 1000 Mhz. Here is a screenie for u...I am running the cpu at 3 Ghz, thats why I am a bit confused abt this.



I was running my ram at 1066 Mhz.  Weird.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 4, 2009)

Chicken Patty said:


> thanks bro.  Yeah the Phenom II is not bad at all bro, I love it.  You do have to keep something in mind.  Phenom II is running on xp and i7 is running on W7.  Although W7 is great, XP will give the i7 better performance as I have already tried it.



so you can run an i7 on xp 
what's the problems you've run into (if any)
reason i ask is i was planning on getting 1 to upgrade this lovely machine


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 4, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> so you can run an i7 on xp
> what's the problems you've run into (if any)
> reason i ask is i was planning on getting 1 to upgrade this lovely machine



i didnt run into any problems.  However I didnt do much with it.  Had it for about 2 weeks then I went to W7.  I just used it to bench as Xp yielded better scores for me.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jun 4, 2009)

i see reason i asked is cause i plan on getting a i7
i just wasn't sure if i could run xp at all well i'll see in a few weeks 
what makes me laugh ,is some guy at a shop i was ringing about prices on parts
said he had a copy of xp 64 bit with a recoverable licence which would work better than xp pro 32 bit 
i thought as if ,dodgy version of xp that had been used no thanks
i'll probably invest in vista seen as it's not that much to buy


----------



## Chicken Patty (Jun 4, 2009)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> i see reason i asked is cause i plan on getting a i7
> i just wasn't sure if i could run xp at all well i'll see in a few weeks
> what makes me laugh ,is some guy at a shop i was ringing about prices on parts
> said he had a copy of xp 64 bit with a recoverable licence which would work better than xp pro 32 bit
> ...



why dont you download W7 RC1.  Its a badass OS, then just get W7 when it comes out


----------

