Anand: PII vs. Q9550 vs. i7 crossfire, Phenom II = smoother

[Bleek]

Anand are often very Intel biased, so this article makes refreshing reading.

As a side note we (I contracted for a company that helped set IEEE standards) did a survey nearly 2 years ago of 'AMD versus Intel' and out of just over 50 users the survey showed that in Windows XP the AMD systems were smoother and 'crisper' to use. These were none technical people using two systems to do the same task over a period of time. None of the participants knew which system they were using.

Interesting.

 

[gareth170]

having a mix hardware e.g nv chipset, intel cpu, ati gpu. isn't the best combo. it's better to have all amd hardware or all nv hardware + intel cpu/amd cpu.. because all amd hardware are optimised to run together. im not sure if nv hardware is the same..

but i had a nv chipset motherboard with a ati gpu and amd cpu,, i had issues with it, it kept hitch and pause at times like they had. but when i changed the motherboard to a amd chipset one everything was fine..

 

[rypt]

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.

AM2+ was release in 2007, this is 2009, so yes few years old.

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.

Software shortcommins can be in both directions, for instance how some games work fine with SLI but not with CF, how some operating systems work with certain hardware and others dont.

 

[deshepherd]

Margarine is smoother than butter but we all know what tastes the best.

I can't believe its not Intel

 

[FRS2462]

AM2+ was release in 2007, this is 2009, so yes few years old.

AM2+ was introduced by AMD around the end of August- beginning of September 2007.
We are now in February 2009.
My arithmetic has never been that good but in my reckoning that is 18 months ago, also known as One and a half years.
Since when did 18 months equate to a few years? Its not even a couple of years never mind a few years.

 

[Bleek]

I can't believe its not Intel

lol

 

[rypt]

AM2+ was introduced by AMD around the end of August- beginning of September 2007.
We are now in February 2009.
My arithmetic has never been that good but in my reckoning that is 18 months ago, also known as One and a half years.
Since when did 18 months equate to a few years? Its not even a couple of years never mind a few years.

Was it not May 07 for chipsets?

 

[mmj_uk]

It does not do it with an AMD CPU which is the point.

Well if your Vista starts chugging in a game because of Superfetch the last thing you do is clear the superfetch folder to make it start all over again... perhaps his AMD system had been up a while so that the majority of the caching had finished.

Like I said I would expect a reputable site like Anandtech to turn the superfetch service off totally as it can skew results, or better still use XP!

Using a NV gpu is irrelevant when its about the CPU performance against CPU.

Did ATI not need to patch their drivers to work properly on X58 chipset? no such fix was needed with NVidia that says a lot about driver quality. GPU drivers run via the CPU so they are absolutely relevant when you're benchmarking using 3D accelerated games which are as much reliant on GPU/drivers than the CPU itself...

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.

But Anandtech aren't most users and superfetch is absolutely no benefit in benchmarking, with Superfetch on Anandtech are basically at the mercy of Vista in hoping that it won't do any caching until they've finished their tests.

 

[Final8y]

Well if your Vista starts chugging in a game because of Superfetch the last thing you do is clear the superfetch folder to make it start all over again... perhaps his AMD system had been up a while so that the majority of the caching had finished.

Like I said I would expect a reputable site like Anandtech to turn the superfetch service off totally as it can skew results, or better still use XP!



Did ATI not need to patch their drivers to work properly on X58 chipset? no such fix was needed with NVidia that says a lot about driver quality. GPU drivers run via the CPU so they are absolutely relevant when you're benchmarking using 3D accelerated games which are as much reliant on GPU/drivers than the CPU itself...



But Anandtech aren't most users and superfetch is absolutely no benefit in benchmarking, with Superfetch on Anandtech are basically at the mercy of Vista in hoping that it won't do any caching until they've finished their tests.

Superfetch should not be a hindrance either & i have never read about anyone turning it off for benching nore do i have problem running games straight after a fresh install of vista.
If you read though the thread when you came in, you would have seen that i have mentioned the possibility of a Intel mobos ATI cards problem already. superfecth should have noting todo with it has it has nothing todo with the GPU hardware or GPU drivers.
It is an indications of a problem else where that happens on intel systems & not AMD ones.
And cut the nonsense about the quality Of drivers because ATI had a problem on the X58 as there are threads in this forums if your not blind with users of both NV & ATI cards right this very moment having driver problems,Once a gain rose tinted glasses & it always seems to be a NV user wearing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jokester View Post
People are seemingly forgetting that ATI cards are optimised to run better on AMD hardware, as I said, this could be purely a Intel + ATI issue, it might not be repeated with an Nvidia card.

Originally Posted by Final8y
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.

 

[mmj_uk]

Superfetch should not be a hindrance either & i have never read about anyone turning it off for benching nore do i have problem running games straight after a fresh install of vista.

Well think about it, it's kinda like having your anti-virus on in the background with a good chance of it starting a scan half way through a bench, I'm speaking from experience when I say that I've been playing games and all of a sudden the HD starts going at it due to superfetch caching a load of crap that it thinks I might use at some point.

He admitted that he cleared the folder which means he must have suspected it to be the problem.

And cut the nonsense about the quality Of drivers because ATI had a problem on the X58 as there are threads in this forums if your not blind with users of both NV & ATI cards right this very moment having driver problems,Once a gain rose tinted glasses & it always seems to be a NV user wearing them.

Sure there are problems with both drivers, but ATI drivers are renowned for needing updates for virtually every new game that comes out, they also had problems with X58 chipset at launch which would tell me that they are not a good stable platform for benchmarking an X58 chipset, you could probably use NVidia drivers from 2-3yrs ago that will run perfectly on any brand of chipset which is why I stated that using an NVidia card/driver combination would give possibly fairer results.

 

[Final8y]

Well think about it, it's kinda like having your anti-virus on in the background with a good chance of it starting a scan half way through a bench, I'm speaking from experience when I say that I've been playing games and all of a sudden the HD starts going at it due to superfetch caching a load of crap that it thinks I might use at some point.

He admitted that he cleared the folder which means he must have suspected it to be the problem.

A problem that did not happen on the AMD setup.

Sure there are problems with both drivers, but ATI drivers are renowned for needing updates for virtually every new game that comes out, they also had problems with X58 chipset at launch which would tell me that they are not a good stable platform for benchmarking an X58 chipset, you could probably use NVidia drivers from 2-3yrs ago that will run perfectly on any brand of chipset which is why I stated that using an NVidia card/driver combination would give possibly fairer results.

The problem that your referring to are not the sort of problem seen in this review.
Fixed for games has nothing to-do with fixed for motherboards. they are two separate issues & one can not be used as weight for the other.

 

[shinester184]

I'm not sure why in quite a few Phenom II reviews people quote: 'We'd advise you to get an i7 system'. Why? They're not rivals are they? The price difference between a Phenom II rig and an i7 is significant - so of course they'd 'advise' you to get the i7.

 

[Nodiggidy123]

im considering possibly swapping my q6600 and mobo for a phenom 2 940. hopefully clocking it to about 3.6gig. would i see much of a performance increase over my q6600?

 

[muppetkiller]

im considering possibly swapping my q6600 and mobo for a phenom 2 940. hopefully clocking it to about 3.6gig. would i see much of a performance increase over my q6600?

I don't think that would be a worth while upgrade.
Just overclocker your current CPU more.

 

[Nodiggidy123]

I don't think that would be a worth while upgrade.
Just overclocker your current CPU more.

unfortunately i seem to have reached the lmits of the board.

tbh im tempted to go amd again just out of sheer curiosity!

 

[muppetkiller]

unfortunately i seem to have reached the lmits of the board.

tbh im tempted to go amd again just out of sheer curiosity!

Thats a pitty.
Even so im not all that sure it still would be worth while.
Maybe when the AM3 boards are out.

 

[luismenendez]

Thats a pitty.
Even so im not all that sure it still would be worth while.
Maybe when the AM3 boards are out.

I don't think is a pitty at all, he just want something new to play with

 

[Bleek]

If you're Q6600 is stuck at 3.1 you can gurantee the Phenom will beat it everywhere, in other words it'll overclock 4-500Mhz more at the very least.

 

[gareth170]

im considering possibly swapping my q6600 and mobo for a phenom 2 940. hopefully clocking it to about 3.6gig. would i see much of a performance increase over my q6600?

if your q6000 can't clock any higher then yes the 940 would be worth it. u should get anything between 3.3-3.8 on stock voltages then alittle bump up on voltage should give u another 200-300mhz.

If you're Q6600 is stuck at 3.1 you can gurantee the Phenom will beat it everywhere, in other words it'll overclock 4-500Mhz more at the very least.

i wouldn't say its a guaranteed. i had a very poor 940 which only did 3.2ghz, lucky it was faulty so i could rma it to amd.. now my replacemeant 940 does 3.5ghz, and nb , ht at 2.2ghz all on stock volts.

 

[Nodiggidy123]

do these cpus run cooler than the q6600 because its a native quad? its been a long time since i clocked a amd cpu. am i right in thinking if i get a black edition the multi is unlocked?