Phenom II 955 Versus Core i7 920: Gaming Value Compared

[Spazosaurus]

Interesting read for all the diehard AMD cpu gamers.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-versus-i7,2360.html

We recently published a review of Cyberpower's Gamer Dragon, a Phenom II 955-based gaming PC equipped with DDR3 RAM and a pair of Radeon HD 4890s in CrossFire. The Cyberpower Gamer Dragon was delivered to us with a nice 3.6 GHz overclock, and when we considered what we should compare this system to, our first thought was our recent $1,300 System Builder Marathon (SBM) machine. With an Intel Core i7-920 and two GeForce GTX 260s in SLI, the cost of the components for the two builds was similar.

The comparison also addressed one of the primary complaints we received when we chose the i7 over the Phenom II for our SBM build: that the Phenom II would have been a better choice for a gaming rig, because its lower price tag would have enabled us to add better graphics cards with the budget available. Since the graphics subsystem is often the limiting factor for game performance, a cheaper AMD processor coupled with a higher-powered graphics card would have offered a better fit for gaming, according to the reader feedback.

On paper, two Radeon HD 4890s best a pair of GeForce GTX 260s, so I was satisfied that the scenario would make for a great comparison of Phenom II versus Core i7 gaming value. I merrily proceeded to take benchmarks, record the findings, and form conclusions based on the data. It seemed like the perfect opportunity to investigate the matter, and after all was said and done, my conclusion was that the Core i7-920 beat the Phenom II by a fairly substantial margin. When a budget allows for a powerful dual-graphics card setup, the Core i7 appeared to be the ideal choice, while the Phenom II was a better pick for machines in a lower price range, which the Core i7 can't touch.  

[Arcmanov]

Indeed.  The 'winner' there was to be expected, but the 955 put up
some surprising numbers.  It seems to be just as capable gaming-wise,
especially when SLI/Crossfire is involved.

Makes a compelling case to avoid Intel altogether eh...save money on the platform,
and channel that savings into beefier GPU(s).

Can't argue with the logic when its presented like that.

AMD FTW?

[Spazosaurus]

Well I look at it a bit different eh.

They paid extra attention to making both builds cost around the same. Look at what happened...

The i7 coupled with a pair of inferior (relatively) cards still beat the amd system with superior cards in almost all cases and a lot of the time by a large margin.

Now this tells me a couple things...

1) i7 ftw because it can take less (4870 as opposed to 4890) and make more (fps wise)

2) If the price drops of video cards continue, those 4870's they used for the Intel could very well be replaced by 4890's

3) The Phenom II was overclocked a good bit more than the i7 to achieve the scores it did, leaving the i7 plenty of headroom for more performance.

4) In other, non gaming tasks, the extra cpu performance with the Intel wtfpwns amd. No contest there.

So to summarise...

BOTH systems in this case cost basically the same so there can be no b1tching that "Intel cost more it too expensive"
With Intel, you get more bang in general computing AND in games EVEN with slower cards. To me, gentlemen, the choice is clear. MY choice is clear.

Intel ftmfwkthxbye

[W1nTry]

Well good to see that he rethought the test process, didn't reveal anything we didn't already know
AMD==Budget gamin
Intel==Top dawg @ top price

I just want to put my thoughts out on some things you said capn.

Well I look at it a bit different eh.

They paid extra attention to making both builds cost around the same. Look at what happened...

The i7 coupled with a pair of inferior (relatively) cards still beat the amd system with superior cards in almost all cases and a lot of the time by a large margin.

Now this tells me a couple things...

1) i7 ftw because it can take less (4870 as opposed to 4890) and make more (fps wise) - agreed

2) If the price drops of video cards continue, those 4870's they used for the Intel could very well be replaced by 4890's - keeping in mind that the price on the 4890 would also decrese and thus the AMD rig would also decrease in price so this is moot.

3) The Phenom II was overclocked a good bit more than the i7 to achieve the scores it did, leaving the i7 plenty of headroom for more performance. - agreed

4) In other, non gaming tasks, the extra cpu performance with the Intel wtfpwns amd. No contest there. - agreed, but this wasn't ever in question

So to summarise...

BOTH systems in this case cost basically the same (the AMD system is almost 100USD cheaper)  so there can be no b1tching that "Intel cost more it too expensive" (I believe I just did)
With Intel, you get more bang in general computing AND in games EVEN with slower cards. To me, gentlemen, the choice is clear. MY choice is clear.

Intel ftmfwkthxbye

One more thing. They did make mention of the even CHEAPER AM2+ platform which btw can build a comparative (performance wise) rig for another 100USD less. What I am getting at is they could just as easily taken a AM2+ 790FX mobo and the Phenom II 940 (AM2+) and of course the cheaper DDR2, and that would further increase the cost difference and still obtain the SAME gaming performance. With that in mind capn, would you sau the AMD rig at 200USD LESS but performing as it did in the review is a waste?

[Crixx_Creww]

lalalala (iam eating so i will let capn fight the good fight while i slurp on my spaghetti)

btw, is this an apples and apples or apples and oranges fight according to the amd crowd?
cause when i come gunz blazin i doh wah hear no whining bout not fair comparison blah blah

[Spazosaurus]

Well good to see that he rethought the test process, didn't reveal anything we didn't already know
AMD==Budget gamin
Intel==Top dawg @ top price

I just want to put my thoughts out on some things you said capn.

Well I look at it a bit different eh.

They paid extra attention to making both builds cost around the same. Look at what happened...

The i7 coupled with a pair of inferior (relatively) cards still beat the amd system with superior cards in almost all cases and a lot of the time by a large margin.

Now this tells me a couple things...

1) i7 ftw because it can take less (4870 as opposed to 4890) and make more (fps wise) - agreed

2) If the price drops of video cards continue, those 4870's they used for the Intel could very well be replaced by 4890's - keeping in mind that the price on the 4890 would also decrese and thus the AMD rig would also decrease in price so this is moot.

3) The Phenom II was overclocked a good bit more than the i7 to achieve the scores it did, leaving the i7 plenty of headroom for more performance. - agreed

4) In other, non gaming tasks, the extra cpu performance with the Intel wtfpwns amd. No contest there. - agreed, but this wasn't ever in question

So to summarise...

BOTH systems in this case cost basically the same (the AMD system is almost 100USD cheaper)  so there can be no b1tching that "Intel cost more it too expensive" (I believe I just did)
With Intel, you get more bang in general computing AND in games EVEN with slower cards. To me, gentlemen, the choice is clear. MY choice is clear.

Intel ftmfwkthxbye

Agreed @ point 2. My bad.

One more thing. They did make mention of the even CHEAPER AM2+ platform which btw can build a comparative (performance wise) rig for another 100USD less. What I am getting at is they could just as easily taken a AM2+ 790FX mobo and the Phenom II 940 (AM2+) and of course the cheaper DDR2, and that would further increase the cost difference and still obtain the SAME gaming performance. With that in mind capn, would you sau the AMD rig at 200USD LESS but performing as it did in the review is a waste?

Then in that case, we can bring out a ASUS P5QL PRO and a Q6600 which is comparable in price to a GIGABYTE GA-MA790X and and AMD Phenom II X4 940 but I GUARANTEE that am2 system eh want nothing performance wise with that q66 (which, lets not forget, will blow away even that 955 phenom when overclocked. Dead platform, yes, but which one performs better? Do you prefer to go with a newer platform and get less prformance of with an older platform and get more?


For future reference, the prices of the components im pointing out are as follows...

Intel
Q6600: $200
ASUS P5QL PRO: $87

Intel Total = $287

AMD Phenom II X4 940: $175
GIGABYTE GA-MA790X: $110

AMD Total = $285

(It is assumed that all other parts are platform independent)

So to answer your question, yes, that am2 system would also be a waste.

[Arcmanov]

I actually appreciate the spirit of the article, which set out to prove that while the
Phenom II platform may not be the fastest, it still makes a compelling case for your
gaming-PC dollars.

I'm inclined to lean on AMD's side here from a price/performance standpoint, because,
lets face it, the AMD stuff is cheaper.

I would actually have no problem recommending a solid AM3 platform to someone
looking to build a gaming computer.

[Spazosaurus]

I'd actually show them the form like this.

You can get something fast for $x....orrr you can get something much faster for $x + `$100 more)

Leave the decision to them.

[W1nTry]

Capn yuh disappointing meh, I didn't think fanboyism would get in the way of Objectivity. Let me point out a few things in your reply:

Then in that case, we can bring out a ASUS P5QL PRO and a Q6600 which is comparable in price to a GIGABYTE GA-MA790X and and AMD Phenom II X4 940

If you check you have mismatched these boards altogether and I would know since yuh quote MY MOTHERBOAD, which UNLIKE the INTEL mobo you listed has 2x16x PCIe 2.0. Your P5QL has 1 16x PCI 2.0 If you want to compare apples to apples then I suggest the ASUS M4A78 Plus which has a single 16x slot and oh btw, its $79.99 at the time of posting this reply. NEXT...

but I GUARANTEE that am2 system eh want nothing performance wise with that q66 (which, lets not forget, will blow away even that 955 phenom when overclocked. Dead platform, yes, but which one performs better? Do you prefer to go with a newer platform and get less prformance of with an older platform and get more?
You absolutely sure about this? Phenom II is clock for clock as good as Q6600 - Arc some input here

For future reference, the prices of the components im pointing out are as follows...
So lets try this again:
Intel
Q6600: $200
ASUS P5QL PRO: $87

Intel Total = $287

AMD Phenom II X4 940: $175
GIGABYTE GA-MA790X: $110
ASUS M4A78 Plus: $79.99

AMD Total = $255

(It is assumed that all other parts are platform independent)

So to answer your question, yes, that am2 system would also be a waste.
right...

Arc call St. Claire medical required, Capn seems to be suffering from intellitis, crixx flu spreading.

Some direct comparisons of the Q6600 vs. the Phenom II 940
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/16
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-18.html
Please feel free to link clock for clock comparison, I too tired to dig for it.

I keep forgetting stuff... one more IMPORTANT POINT, the Q6600 unlike the 940BE has LOCKED mutlipliers, thus OCing is completely on the FSB, so if we are to compare LIKE processors at least, you would have to consider using the Phenom II X4 920 which is $149.99 USD OR the Phenom II X4 810 @ $139.00USD. A further 25USD and 35USD savings respectively. I REALLY don't see how a cheaper equally (or better) performing rig is a waste of time...

[Arcmanov]

Most of the clock-for-clock comparisons I've seen show that the X4 940 has more in common with Yorkfield
quads (the Q9550 in particular) than the Kentsfield, in terms of gaming performance.

You'll find that a X4 940 will actually beat a Q6600 in a direct clock-for-clock comparison.

[Spazosaurus]

Oh i'l neevverrrr be on Crix level when it comes to fanboyism. In fact, you dont want to have me as a fanboy because i'd change sides as soon as you're going under XD.

That said, the q6600 vs Phenom II x4 was a bad comparison. I, cap't admit this. There's nothing to beat AMD in the midrange segment (read Phenom X2 940) in the PRICING department.

Now allow me to go back to the article that was linked.

Remember that in this case we're talking about the mid high end segment (x4 955's and i7 920). We're talking about dual video cards, which for maximum performance would require 2 pci-e x16 running 16x16 and for both platforms, they made choices that support this. I'm pretty sure (save for a few exceptions) that the 790fx chipset, not the cheaper 790x is the only one that supports the 16x16 config and I know for sure the x58 is the only one that supports 16x16 for the i7.

In response to going with the X4 940 and DDR2....

It also doesnt make much sense to go with a shiny new 790fx board and limit yourself to a previous gen cpu and previous gen memory that will cripple your bandwidth and throughput, taking into account the fact you'll limit yourself to running only one memory module per channel in the process which limits you a MAXIMUM of 4gb memory in dual channel mode (unless you get 4gb modules)

So is ALLLL that rigmaroll just to save about $50us (Yes, thats how much you save by going ddr2 and x4 940)

Check it out...prices according to Newegg

940: $175
Gskill ddr2 800 4gb (2x2) kit: $47

Total: $222

as opposed to

955 :$210
Gskill ddr3 1333 4gb (2x2)  :$65

Total: $275

Now keep in mind, we're giving a recommendation to someone who has enough scratch to run a dual card setup and we ARE also talking about the mid high end bracket.

Back to the original article...

So for $75 more, you get a much more powerful system, thanks to the cpu which helps immensely not only in games, but in all other non-gaming tasks. Also dont forget you also get the option to run either xfire OR sli, a luxury amd does not afford. That's for less than $500tt. Some of you spend close to that a week in gas for your car!!! Walk to work for a while or cut down on the visits to Murray st or something XD. Yes the AMD is cheaper route, but look at how much more you're getting for not a whole lot more...

again...

I'd actually show them the form like this.

You can get something fast for $x....orrr you can get something much faster for $x + `$>500tt more)

Leave the decision to them.

[mailman166]

In 16 hrs an 10 mins all this was written .........LOL...  I'm running intel now but ran amd before. I'de suggest to customers pick a budget and stick to it... Because in the end performance at that level + or - 100US$ wont matter to you. Because most ppl wont have the time to plot out performance in either side with all these variables till the machine's built and in hand.

So eat what comes across your plate, not your neighbour's

[W1nTry]

Actually Capn so far there has been little memory advantage to AMD going to DDR3 (save when overclocking duh...) and the AM2+ platform is capable of upgrading to AM3 processors, because AMD was VERY careful to give their customers the BEST upgrade path. In simple terms, my AM3 720BE runs in a AM2+ motherboard. You heard right, the AM3 processor has BOTH a DDR2 and DDR3 integrated memory controller. So in a years time I can upgrade to the latest LOW power AM3 X4 BE if I feel like it.

As far as memory bandwidth goes, AMD had the lead over intel up until Core i7 and so far all we've seen is ONLY SERVERS with SPECIFIC types of workloads can take FULL advantage of the memory bandwidth of Opterons of yesteryear. Desktops NEVER come close to using the 12+ GBps that the AM2+ platform can deliver so in truth and in fact the AM2+ platform is still a HELL of a viable desktop solution as you still have a significant degree of future proofing vs. the LGA 775 platform.

But we agree the high end intel rules, the mid range AMD rules. Oh 1 more thing, with a single 16x PCIe 2.0 slot you COULD go with an HD4xxxX2 card and not worry about having a more costly mobo to do 16x X2. Just a thought.

[Spazosaurus]

Yeah, im aware of the backwards compatibility of am3 with ddr2 memory. That IS a neat little ability.

Agreed @ using x2 cards. But when you have el cheapo cards like the 4670, when u xfire that, imagine the possibilities. You can blow a chunk of dough on platform, cheap out on the graphics and get blazing gaming performance with a lot of help from our i7 friend.