![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
what/ how is an amd phenom ii x4 at 3.8ghz comparable to an intel?
- Thread starter umcpgrad
- Start date
in gaming.....depends on the card.....honestly you wont see a dam lick of difference at 1920x1080, with either i7/C2/Phenom II at 3.2 or above.....add into it multiple cards you need any of the architectures at 3.5.......games are NOT as CPU dependent these days, they are more GPU restricted, so what your problem ends up being is more of a CPU bottleneck to the cards, rather than the other way around
bore_u2_death
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 357
Look at the results and see what each processor brings to the table
Tom's Hardware Processor Review with 750, 920, 970, 1075Thttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x6-1075t-phenom-ii-x4-970-phenom-ii-x2-560,2749-8.html
At stock speeds the i5 750 is comparable to the 970 at stock. The 970 is marginally slower in games than the 750. Once both are OCed, the AMD at 4.1 and the i5 at 3.75, the i5 stomps all over the PII. The i5 also consumes about 40 watts less at load, and about 15 watts less at overclocked load. The performance increase the i5 experiences is massive relative to the 970.
Tom's Hardware Processor Review with 750, 920, 970, 1075Thttp://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x6-1075t-phenom-ii-x4-970-phenom-ii-x2-560,2749-8.html
At stock speeds the i5 750 is comparable to the 970 at stock. The 970 is marginally slower in games than the 750. Once both are OCed, the AMD at 4.1 and the i5 at 3.75, the i5 stomps all over the PII. The i5 also consumes about 40 watts less at load, and about 15 watts less at overclocked load. The performance increase the i5 experiences is massive relative to the 970.
Posts like these are so misleading. Sorry but generalisations like these really don't help.
There are CPU bound games, and GPU bound games... not everyone plays Crysis or MW2 exclusively. Heard of RTS games? Starcraft II and Civilization 5 for example...
http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/320-civilization-v-performance/page12.html
It's not limited to RTS games either. For example, if you want to run Mafia II with Physx on 'high', you pretty much need a 4GHz i5 / i7 for playable framerates:
http://www.techspot.com/review/312-mafia2-performance/page8.html
Then there are games like BF:BC2 that require a beefy quad to stay above 60fps consistently. Flight sims (ie. FS-X) and racing sims (ie. F1 2010) are all very CPU bound as well.
Core i5 / i7 >>>>>>>> Phenom II / C2Q in CPU bound games. That might not have been the case 2 years ago, but things change. The only exception is if you are running at exceptionally high resolutions (2560 x 1600 or Eyefinity) but at 1920 x 1080 CPU speed still matters to many games.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'd say roughly equal to a 2.66GHz i7, but faster than a 3.2GHz C2Q, especially if we're talking about the older Kentsfield core.
yes it is a very general statement i made.....in general you want more GPU power.....in general games (svae for Crysis) are better witha quad(all the OP is looking at) at 3.5 or aboe....at 3.5 the frame gains are negligible(no 'i" series to compare with, but i have compared Phenom II X2, Phenom II X6 and a C2Q Q9450 all at 3.5, and ill tell you this, with a GTX 260, i was GPU bound with the x6 and Q9450)
Well a Phenom or C2Q is not an i7 is it?
Phenom II is roughly equal to C2Q 65nm (Kentsfield)per clock and slightly slower than 45nm Penryn. i7 is a step above all these chips.Like I said, perhaps 2 years ago they were neck and neck, but newer games really favour the i5 / i7 from what I've seen.
Btw, let me just make it clear that I'm NOT saying Phenom IIs or C2Qs suck for gaming, especially when overclocked. There's still plenty of oomph in these chips for all but the most demanding of games. But you can't deny that i7 is faster in games that really tax the CPU.
Last edited:
bore_u2_death
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 357
The Tom's Hardware System Builder Marathon of a few months ago.
The $2K build that was most recent used a 1055T with high end air cooling @ 4GHz. They cheaped out on some components so they could get GTX 480 SLI and be within budget.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-cpu-build-a-pc,2700-11.html
The June 2010 Build is an i7 930 and a GTX 470 SLI. The August 2010 Build is an AMD X6 1055T with a GTX 480 SLI. The 1055T gets an OC to 4.03GHz. The 930 gets an OC to 4.1GHz.
Look at the two pages with the gaming benchmarks. A GTX 480 SLI gets its ass handed to it by a GTX 470 SLI all the way up to 25x16. CPU limitation, alive and well.
The $2K build that was most recent used a 1055T with high end air cooling @ 4GHz. They cheaped out on some components so they could get GTX 480 SLI and be within budget.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-cpu-build-a-pc,2700-11.html
The June 2010 Build is an i7 930 and a GTX 470 SLI. The August 2010 Build is an AMD X6 1055T with a GTX 480 SLI. The 1055T gets an OC to 4.03GHz. The 930 gets an OC to 4.1GHz.
Look at the two pages with the gaming benchmarks. A GTX 480 SLI gets its ass handed to it by a GTX 470 SLI all the way up to 25x16. CPU limitation, alive and well.
fullvietFX
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,015
Looks like clock for clock the i3 and Q6600 are pretty similar. I wonder how much better is the Q9550 clock for clock compared to the Q6600/i5.
and yet yes the frames are higher, in some cases by alot, but can you honestly tell a bloody difference between 150fps and 200 fps? I cant tell a dam difference between 60 and 100....
i3 is dual core...
Generally Q9x50 chips are 5 - 6% faster than Q6x00 chips per clock.
Average framerates can be a bit misleading... its the minimum framerates that people notice, when theres heaps of explosions and other effects going on and framerate dips big time...
bore_u2_death
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 357
I agree at the resolutions they tested at it won't make much of a difference, anything that is playable on the 930 will be playable on the 1090T platform so you don't lose anything.
But it goes to show you, a high-end gaming rig is more compatible to Intel's quad cores over AMD's hexacores.