Last edited:
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Anand: PII vs. Q9550 vs. i7 crossfire, Phenom II = smoother
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
Margarine is smoother than butter but we all know what tastes the best.
I actually think Phenom II offers good performance when compared to equivalently priced competition. When you consider CPU, Mobo and Ram costs, the i7 platform is only an option for those that have money to waste.
I actually think Phenom II offers good performance when compared to equivalently priced competition. When you consider CPU, Mobo and Ram costs, the i7 platform is only an option for those that have money to waste.
"We noticed this in game play also; the Intel systems would hitch and pause at times. We would shutdown the game, clear the prefetch folder, and reboot."
It sounds more like a Vista caching issue, I would've thought a reputable review site like Anandtech would turn off the Superfetch service when benchmarking to stop it from randomly interfering.
Using an NVidia GPU would've been more sensible also their drivers aren't as buggy.
It sounds more like a Vista caching issue, I would've thought a reputable review site like Anandtech would turn off the Superfetch service when benchmarking to stop it from randomly interfering.
Using an NVidia GPU would've been more sensible also their drivers aren't as buggy.
Last edited:
I would say its not a waste if you really want the best.
It does not do it with an AMD CPU which is the point.
Using a NV gpu is irrelevant when its about the CPU performance against CPU.
Last edited:
But he's right, it could be the combination of Intel + ATI that's causing the problem, they haven't discounted that in this review.
But most users would not turn off the superfetch or think to do.
So until the cause is really found then the facts as they are still stand as that's the normal circumstance of which Vista is run in.
And is the first time that im even aware of such a possible problem.
Last edited:
Yep we all Know the I7 is faster, no one was disputing that obvious fact.
clearly this article is by trying to blame the cpu for short-commings in OS/games
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
if it was a short coming in the os or the game, then it wouldn't work better on the P2 cpu, but it does. My p2 system is superb and has been very smooth in everything.
THe point is, i7 will excell at times with raw power. Its a faster cpu, top fps will be with the i7, but average and minimum fps aren't based on the cpu, ever. They are gpu limits, the difference is, better faster more raw horse power cpu does NOT mean the motherboard, the interconnects, the responsiveness of the pci-e controller nor the chipset are faster.
When you're at a gpu limit, on the same gpu giving the gpu every single advantage to get extra fps is paramount, and that doesn't come from the cpu, when you AREN'T cpu limited, it comes from the apparently better architectural setup of the P2 systems, maybe its simply a better interconnect that they've had several years to learn from past versions and small tweaks and improvements. Is that really so hard to believe? Intel have been stuck on the old FSB for a LONG time and the new interconnect is just that, new, brand new, its a first generation and their first memory controller. They've intergrated a lot of new things and clearly, its somewhere the AMD systems are slightly better in.
I'd take a system with 30 min, 60 average and 80max frames in a game over a system that has a 20min, 62 average, and 110 max framerate. The faster actual cpu, JUST the cpu, is in the second system, in this case, the i7. But the faster system, giving the better experience is the AMD system.
i7 will always benchmark higher, it will never be good value for gaming and it won't provide the best experience.
Rypt, you're coming across as a fanboy, you read a review, which no where at all says the i7 is a slower cpu, but instantly react in this thread like Anandtech are bashing the i7, which they very clearly aren't.
A system doesn't have just an i7 in though, its a faster cpu, thats not where the problem lies.
P2 chipset is the same as the P1 chipset, AM2+ so unless AMD royally messed up AM2+ for the past few years...
If i7 can bench higher, it clearly shows that there is no problem in how the CPU communicates with things, so perhaps this is just crossfire mis-behaving, woudl be interseting to try this exact same test with sli.
Thinking about it & what i have been reading on this forum with users who have switched from ATI to NV & said that NV card ran smoother seem to be on Intel mobos.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
See again you're posting something that makes no sense. I didn't say the p2 uses a different chipset. However AM2+ is not a few years old. They first had HT, on board mem controller and a different way of communicating across the board, what, 4 years ago, 5 maybe on 754 boards, 939, 940 boards, am2 and am2+ are what, less than a year old or maybe just over a year. Thats several iterations with YEARS of experience.
THe difference here is the P1 was slightly slower, it also had less cache than it needed and lower clocks than needed, we're talking about Anand comparing a 4Ghz p2, with a p1 at stock of what 2.4Ghz. Once you have enough cpu power, which they now have, it becomes about everything else.
Ati cards aren't optimised especially for amd systems. its a card, it needs data as fast as possible, it works within the pci-e slot. Theres something working slightly better, thats causing a tiny amount of quicker communication opening up the ability to get the card working at its maximum capacity letting it get higher min fps.
I can't find anything even close to surprising about AMD's 5 year old, matured, tweaked motherboard's communication architecture having some slight advantages to a 2 month old, brand new, never seen before first chipset new technology intel setup which still has 5 years of life in it that will no doubt be tweaked in the future.
I'll point out again that you first said, they are blaming the cpu(they didn't) for clear shortcomings in the OS/games, the fact is the same game/os worked better on the amd system, this completely disproves what you say. If it was a shortcoming with the software it would be the same with both systems, it clearly isn't.
Last edited:
Title of this thread should be PII Vs Q9550 V i7, I7 = smoother.
On 5 games the i7 was best for min/max and average,
One of the games the Phenom2 did well, was a perfect demonstration of a game that has poor crossfire results, the PII dropped from min 18 to min 16, and the i7 dropped from Min 20 to Min 16.
This whole clear the prefetch happened in 1 game out of 7, Company of Heroes - Opposing fronts. This game clearly favoured the Phenom II for minimum framerates. There is clearly something badly optimized in Company of heroes, its performance on both intel i7 and Q9550 platforms was poor. Of the 7 games this is the only 1 which showed the PII as the smoothest system.
So 5 games the i7 was the best all rounter, with the 9550 doing very well too, in 1 game (Crysis warhead) there was virtually no difference between the i7 and the Phenom II, results almost within margin of error. But the Q9550 did perform considerably worse on this test. Not a clear victory for the PII though, on the whole it looks like the i7 is the "overall" winner on Crysis warhead.
To be honest, I wonder about the results accuracy anyway, in COH the [email protected] had a minimum CF framerate of 90 V PII's 85, yet overclocked to 4Ghz the i7 only managed 85, while the PII managed 91. Infact i7 at stock 2.66ghz was almost within margin of error with the PII at 3.95ghz. Looks like their overclock wasnt entirely stable to me.
On 5 games the i7 was best for min/max and average,
One of the games the Phenom2 did well, was a perfect demonstration of a game that has poor crossfire results, the PII dropped from min 18 to min 16, and the i7 dropped from Min 20 to Min 16.
This whole clear the prefetch happened in 1 game out of 7, Company of Heroes - Opposing fronts. This game clearly favoured the Phenom II for minimum framerates. There is clearly something badly optimized in Company of heroes, its performance on both intel i7 and Q9550 platforms was poor. Of the 7 games this is the only 1 which showed the PII as the smoothest system.
So 5 games the i7 was the best all rounter, with the 9550 doing very well too, in 1 game (Crysis warhead) there was virtually no difference between the i7 and the Phenom II, results almost within margin of error. But the Q9550 did perform considerably worse on this test. Not a clear victory for the PII though, on the whole it looks like the i7 is the "overall" winner on Crysis warhead.
To be honest, I wonder about the results accuracy anyway, in COH the [email protected] had a minimum CF framerate of 90 V PII's 85, yet overclocked to 4Ghz the i7 only managed 85, while the PII managed 91. Infact i7 at stock 2.66ghz was almost within margin of error with the PII at 3.95ghz. Looks like their overclock wasnt entirely stable to me.