Comparison of 1156/1366/AM3 clocked at 3.8

95thrifles · 11 Sep 2009 at 10:02

As title suggest, anandtech have done some clock for clock comparisons whilst OCd instead of just at stock, should be interesting for most
Edit: updated

gurusan · 11 Sep 2009 at 10:09

Interesting, I sort of wish they would have thrown in a Yorkfield at 3.8GHz as well...I understand it's not a new chip but it would put the numbers into better perspective for prospective buyers IMO.

kieves1 · 11 Sep 2009 at 19:01

The bit that intrested me in that link was

will post several benchmark results later today based on our motherboard test suite. Anand will provide a more in-depth analysis next week along with an updated look at the Core i7/860. He might even have a surprise announcement from AMD
Wonder what the surprise announcment could be. 975 maybe or a new stepping release to get past the elusive 3.8 on air barrier.

Hades · 11 Sep 2009 at 20:04

I have spent the better part of the last twenty four hours trying to figure out our FarCry 2 numbers and it also happens in other games by the way. The only conclusion I have right now is that with the latest NV drivers, Win7, and certain games, the Phenom II 965 is faster now.

Not only against Lynnfield but also against Bloomfield in the tests we utilize for the motherboards. The CPU oriented action test we use in the processor benchmarks tells another story. So something is happening along the graphics path at this point, what exactly is something we are trying to isolate.

I'm sure this is just a driver issue but I didn't expect that.

gurusan · 15 Sep 2009 at 21:23

Article has now been updated.....the AMD and GTX 275 performance is downright stunning :eek:

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=1

Tom|Nbk · 15 Sep 2009 at 21:54

gurusan said:
Interesting, I sort of wish they would have thrown in a Yorkfield at 3.8GHz as well...I understand it's not a new chip but it would put the numbers into better perspective for prospective buyers IMO.

Agreed, that've been nice

Hades · 15 Sep 2009 at 22:07

gurusan said:
Article has now been updated.....the AMD and GTX 275 performance is downright stunning

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=1

Wow, impressive. It's interesting that AM3 with AMD gfx is not so hot but AM3 with nV beats the I5/I7 with nV. Unless this is a glitch somewhere then AM3 seems the best current platform for single GPU gaming (as long as you get an nV).

Hotwired · 15 Sep 2009 at 22:17

How very embarrassing.

AMD CPU + it's competitors GPU works better than with its own. More to the point it works unbelievably better than all the rest.

gurusan · 15 Sep 2009 at 22:46

Intriguing, ain't it...I'm very curious as to the reason for this.

Hades · 15 Sep 2009 at 22:58

And I wonder how well AM2 or S775 would run on those tests with a GTX 275?

mmj_uk · 15 Sep 2009 at 23:27

Why didn't they do the game tests with all CPU's at 3.8ghz I thought that was the point of the article?

mmj_uk · 15 Sep 2009 at 23:34

Hotwired said:
How very embarrassing.

AMD CPU + it's competitors GPU works better than with its own. More to the point it works unbelievably better than all the rest.

It doesn't work better it's just the GTX275 is faster in those games at those particular settings.

The reason the Intel's lag behind is because they're still at stock settings and are CPU limited, that's why on the Intel systems the GTX 275 isn't showing any significant gains compared to 4890.

Hades said:
Wow, impressive. It's interesting that AM3 with AMD gfx is not so hot but AM3 with nV beats the I5/I7 with nV. Unless this is a glitch somewhere then AM3 seems the best current platform for single GPU gaming (as long as you get an nV).

At stock yes, Phenom @3.4ghz is 7-10fps faster than i7 [email protected] in those benchmarks.

Hades · 15 Sep 2009 at 23:45

mmj_uk said:
It doesn't work better it's just the GTX275 is faster in that game at those particular settings.

The reason the Intel's lag behind is because they're still at stock settings are CPU limited, that's why on the Intel systems the GTX 275 isn't showing any significant gains compared to 4890.

At stock yes, Phenom @3.4ghz is 7fps faster than i7 [email protected].

Yes, fair point about the stock speed.

mmj_uk · 15 Sep 2009 at 23:55

The game benchmarks are a mixture between CPU and GPU limited so you can't really tell anything from them with such varying cpu speeds, will they be adding 3.8ghz results later?

Hotwired · 15 Sep 2009 at 23:59

They should really have done the gaming tests with the same stock/ht/turbo/oc options as on the rest.

Still, it is showing that on stock the AMD chip is a decent performer for gaming.

paininlife · 16 Sep 2009 at 00:48

well, i gues we alreadi discussed abt AMD Pii 955 at 3.8 vs i7 920 @3.8 ghz (follow the link in first post)and it showed that both were very much close to each other,but if its 965 thn it wil def take the lead, so i wud say that for gaming rig AMD is the way to go

95thrifles · 16 Sep 2009 at 09:15

Hades said:
And I wonder how well AM2 or S775 would run on those tests with a GTX 275?

gurusan said:
Interesting, I sort of wish they would have thrown in a Yorkfield at 3.8GHz as well...I understand it's not a new chip but it would put the numbers into better perspective for prospective buyers IMO.

"Last, but not least, I only ran the i5/750 without turbo enabled and the P45/C2Q setup is missing. I am still completing those numbers"

mmj_uk said:
Why didn't they do the game tests with all CPU's at 3.8ghz I thought that was the point of the article?

What gives you the impression they reset everything to stock for the game benchies? as far as I can tell these were run at 3.8 too, I think it doesnt specify on the graph purely because of lack of space, but Id be very suprised if they werent run at 3.8 seen as as you say its the point of the article

mmj_uk · 27 Oct 2009 at 15:14

95thrifles said:
What gives you the impression they reset everything to stock for the game benchies? as far as I can tell these were run at 3.8 too, I think it doesnt specify on the graph purely because of lack of space, but Id be very suprised if they werent run at 3.8 seen as as you say its the point of the article

Well the most obvious reason is that the Phenom would not be so far in front without an 800Mhz advantage.

Also, unlike the rest of the tests it doesn't state 3.8Ghz for any of the results and also Turbo is used on all Intel CPU's, if it was a 3.8Ghz test then turbo would be disabled as it is on all the other tests.

I'm 100% certain that they have simply neglected to do the game tests with any CPUs at 3.8Ghz, instead running all at stock which as we all agree defies the point of the article (unless he got slipped some cash from AMD

).

95thrifles · 27 Oct 2009 at 15:28

bit of a late reply, lol

Techreport have since done some tests comparing platforms with gpu for in game performance, as can be seen from the chart below, at low res (cpu dependant situation) intel wins, however at higher res (gpu dependant situation) AMD and old 775 outperform new i5/i7, seen as how most people use a res around 1920x1200 this is more sgnificant

mmj_uk · 27 Oct 2009 at 16:52

95thrifles said:
bit of a late reply, lol

Techreport have since done some tests comparing platforms with gpu for in game performance, as can be seen from the chart below, at low res (cpu dependant situation) intel wins, however at higher res (gpu dependant situation) AMD and old 775 outperform new i5/i7, seen as how most people use a res around 1920x1200 this is more sgnificant
...

Ye I was doing a search and came across it.

With all the CPUs at 3.8Ghz and in high resolutions I would expect all to perform similarly in games due to the GPU bottlenecks you mentioned, but in situations such as low resolutions or when the CPU's aren't being held back by other compnents the i5/i7 should excel as with almost every other application.