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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

Smoother and "stuttering" are not necessarily confined to AMD vs. Intel. It's also ATi vs. nVidia. Hell, bad drivers can make my GTX260 stutter like crazy.
I can understand someone saying AMD is smoother, but I never bought into this when I had my Opt146 setup. And I most certainly don't buy it now. I've had a buttery smooth TF2/L4D experience since upgrading to Core2/P35. Stuttering is a serious allegation. I'm not sure, but I think Anandtech is trying to pull an [H] and attract viewership by spouting controversial statements.

---

My Core2/P35 setup was a stuttery turd compared to my 790GX/9950 setup, so to each their own right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

You guys do realize that this sort of talk, if it takes root, is only going to hurt AMD right?

---

I seriously doubt you believe that, else you wouldn't be trying to ridicule the fact that AMD system's are smoother, and even AnandTech of all places agree. And if AT says AMD systems offer a smoother experience, there should be no doubt about it. It must have killed them to utter those words. :D Anywho, I hope you enjoy your new, more expensive and erratic system! ;) It was just a matter of time before people caught on to the smoothness of AMD. Sorry about your luck! heh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

You see Gary, this is where the problem lies:
People rush to conclusions very fast, sometimes ignoring the facts and common logic, and due to the blindfolded fanboyism can't even read the charts properly and start bashing the "intel/nvidia/via/cyrix biased site"... it's not a FFT calculation guys, it's a damn chart.

It doesn't take more than a few seconds to realize that the charts are sorted by the average FPS value people.
5 seconds...



Yeap, exactly that.



Not everybody, but the thread starter and some members did.
Well...



So... which side is the reviewer on in your opinion ?
First they do say that between the Phenom II and the Core 2 Quad the Phenom performed better and the gameplay was smoother.
Then they also say that the Core i7 performed better than the Phenom II, and that they were butter-smooth both except in C.O.H. where the Intel had some stuttering.

People tend to reject reality and lay off to a simple ( and lame ) excuse... call the author a fanboy and it's a done deal.

Nice.
You ( the readers ) doubt most if not all the reviewers on the web & the magazines.
You also doubt various consumers ( buyers, simple users, not reviewers or people affiliated with a company in any way ) and members of this and other forums.
So... who do you trust ? Let me answer this question for you ( generally speaking, not specifically for you ):
the one that comes to a conclusion that you like.

In this case the world would be better off without any hardware reviews websites & user reviews on the net.
Just stop posting reviews on the net. And have fun.



News flash!
Thread title = PII vs. Q9550 vs i7, Phenom II = smoother

Now everyone with common sense with some education ( third class ? :p: ) can figure out what the thread title means.

It's saying

"Phenom II against the Q9550 and the i7, the Phenom II is smoother".



^



Do you ?



So... in your own gaming experience, going from 50fps to 25fps is smoother than going from 50fps to 32fps ? [ just an example ].




Are you trying to convince yourself ?
Because AnandTech is saying:

---

QFTFT

I also find it funny that after all the yrs of AMD supporters saying AT is intel biased, & now suddenly he's their best buddy :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

QFTFT

I also find it funny that after all the yrs of AMD supporters saying AT is intel biased, & now suddenly he's their best buddy :rolleyes:

---

i have always heard people say anandtech to be intel biased but i have been happy with all their reviews. i think out of all the phenom II reviews theirs was the best. i don't know when or who started the intel biased thing. i think the reason why theres such an uproar is because the people think that even an intel biased site is saying amd is smoother now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

My Core2/P35 setup was a stuttery turd compared to my 790GX/9950 setup, so to each their own right?

---

Ok, since I used to be a total AMD fanboy (2001-2007), I'm gonna cut you some slack. But wtf. To each their own? Do you have any idea how many Core2/P35 users are out there and NOT ONCE has this issue come up? You want to know the only two times I've experienced stuttering?

1. Via KT133 board (AMD Tbird)
Promise ATA100 controller was a POS. Stuttering only went away when I went back to the native Via IDE controller.

2. A7N8X rev1.06 (pre 400FSB models);
Board did not like my Buffalo CH-5 in DIMM2 and 4. Stuttering blatantly obvious in CS:S.

The one time I didn't see stuttering was in my A64 system (surprise? IMC.)

On AT bias, for the last time, they changed their tune RIGHT before the release of Core2. Anyone reading the articles around that time would seen the subtle changing of teams happening right before their eyes. But yeah - before that, they were basically AMD apologists. They weren't blatantly fan boy the way Tom's was back in the day, but they weren't completely indifferent either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

So... which side is the reviewer on in your opinion ?
First they do say that between the Phenom II and the Core 2 Quad the Phenom performed better and the gameplay was smoother.
Then they also say that the Core i7 performed better than the Phenom II, and that they were butter-smooth both except in C.O.H. where the Intel had some stuttering.

People tend to reject reality and lay off to a simple ( and lame ) excuse... call the author a fanboy and it's a done deal.

Nice.
You ( the readers ) doubt most if not all the reviewers on the web & the magazines.
You also doubt various consumers ( buyers, simple users, not reviewers or people affiliated with a company in any way ) and members of this and other forums.
So... who do you trust ? Let me answer this question for you ( generally speaking, not specifically for you ):
the one that comes to a conclusion that you like.

In this case the world would be better off without any hardware reviews websites & user reviews on the net.
Just stop posting reviews on the net. And have fun.

---

I dont think the reviewer is on any side. I think they gave an honest and eye opening opinion. That AMD and Phenom 2 can now closely compete with Intel not always winning and not always losing but providing a decent amount of performance this time around in a gaming environment.

For people with AM2+ mobos this is great news a nice performance boost without the huge expense of upgrading mobo and memory.

On the other hand If you already have one of many of Intels comparable products or a step higher, the I7 then theres no reason to look at Phenom 2.

But there has to be a reason why it was made a point throughout the article that the Phenom was very smooth. They liked the way the cpu did its job if they didnt Im sure they would have said so.

At the end of the day, I have mine it runs great and thats all I really care about.:)

I would like to see the opinions of people here that actualy have a Intel quad and a AMD quad rather then from people who only have one or the other. what you say means nothing at all if you dont actualy have both, otherwise your just speaking out your ass.

Now on that note, the couple of people that I know off hand that are using both have claimed the smoother operation of AMD. Myself I have 2 Intel dual core systems but no quad to compare to my AMD Quads but with that the AMD system is smoother. Yesterday I ordered a I7 920 and a Gigabyte X58 board so I will soon find out for myself quad vs quad.

until you actually sit someone down on a phenom system, they will tell you that you are crazy if you try to tell them it's smoother. there is evidence that supports core 2 and i7's performance, but nothing that can be quantified as far as smoothness is concerned. i thought the K10 people were crazy with that claim.

when i bought one, and started to use the system for an extended period, i felt the same way - my intel system does things that involve a bar going across the screen faster, but the amd feels quicker in windows and in smoother in games.

additionally, when i compare the voltages that I have to run through my intel system (stable at 500 fsb) with my AMD voltages, i feel much more comfortable running my AMD system 24/7 than I do the intel, even though the intel core voltages are significantly lower.

im not going to argue with anyone, what i've said is just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

I seriously doubt you believe that, else you wouldn't be trying to ridicule the fact that AMD system's are smoother, and even AnandTech of all places agree. And if AT says AMD systems offer a smoother experience, there should be no doubt about it. It must have killed them to utter those words. :D Anywho, I hope you enjoy your new, more expensive and erratic system! ;) It was just a matter of time before people caught on to the smoothness of AMD. Sorry about your luck! heh

---

Quote:

---

When it came to actual game play experiences, we thought the Phenom II 940 was clearly the better choice in Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts and Crysis Warhead due to minimum frame rate advantages and fluidity of game play.

---

so in 2 games: PII > Q9550
then...

Quote:

---

In the five other titles, we could not tell any real differences in the quality of game play between the Phenom II 940 and Core 2 Quad Q9550.

---

so thats 5 games =


soooo.. the all this commotion over the PII *definitely* being smoother in 2 games

flippin_waffles: sorry ur out of luck, looks as tho ur game library is restricted to 2 games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i have always heard people say anandtech to be intel biased but i have been happy with all their reviews. i think out of all the phenom II reviews theirs was the best. i don't know when or who started the intel biased thing. i think the reason why theres such an uproar is because the people think that even an intel biased site is saying amd is smoother now.

---

well personall I dont know if they are biased or not - but I find A-Ok to come to the conclusion they did :up:

I had an AMD quad (phenom 9600BE) and I have an intel quad now (Q6600) but the AMD chip was defective, unstable at stock speeds, and most certainly slower than my q6600 so there isn't anywhere close to a valid comparison there :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

No problem glad it wasnt one like Shintai's......"the future is not in L3 cache".......or that "another year of Nvidia dominance":p:

---

I got his dominance right here.........:hump::hrhr:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

But wtf. To each their own? Do you have any idea how many Core2/P35 users are out there and NOT ONCE has this issue come up?

---

I've seen it mentioned several times, especially in smoothness threads. ;)

I must not be included in the group of users that haven't had trouble since every intel CPU I used with my Gigabyte P35 DS3L and Lanparty P35 DK had gaming issues, and that is with several different ram sets, hard drives, and GPU's.

e: Just as a side note I had issues with my 939 nf4 board but not with my AM2 550 board... fwiw of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

QFTFT

I also find it funny that after all the yrs of AMD supporters saying AT is intel biased, & now suddenly he's their best buddy :rolleyes:

---

Ummm, exactly when did I profess my love for Anand?

The fact that they seem intel biased makes this article that much more valuable for proving our point about smoothness...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

soooo.. the all this commotion over the PII *definitely* being smoother in 2 games

---

Of course there is commotion... before this smoothness didn't even exist. :rolleyes:

Now all of a sudden it does exist but isn't important because it isn't in all games (which almost none of us ever claimed in the first place)

Wow, what a turnaround.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

I had an AMD quad (phenom 9600BE) and I have an intel quad now (Q6600) but the AMD chip was defective, unstable at stock speeds, and most certainly slower than my q6600 so there isn't anywhere close to a valid comparison there :p:

---

Early Phenoms were turds. My 9950 125W however is a great match to my Q6600 in gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

Hey you should edit that sig so it shows curly throwing a shoe at Bush:rofl:......holy :banana::banana::banana::banana: it is Bush...........:ROTF:

---

How about this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Ummm, exactly when did I profess my love for Anand?

---

did I direct that comment at u? no :poke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

The fact that they seem intel biased makes this article that much more valuable for proving our point about smoothness...

Of course there is commotion... before this smoothness didn't even exist. :rolleyes:

---

I'm all for smoothness - but atm it looks like its 2 games :stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

did I direct that comment at u? no :poke:




I'm all for smoothness - but atm it looks like its 2 games :stick:

---

Ok, I can wind the argument down a bit then I suppose.


I must say though, Crysis was one of the games in which I most noticed the difference between my AMD and Intel rigs which is interesting because:

1) That agrees with Anand's results

2) Crysis supposedly "plays best on intel Core2".... My Arse!!! :rofl:



Of all the games for intel to have no excuse for getting beaten by AMD that is A#1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Ok, I can wind the argument down a bit then I suppose.


I must say though, Crysis was one of the games in which I most noticed the difference between my AMD and Intel rigs which is interesting because:

1) That agrees with Anand's results

2) Crysis supposedly "plays best on intel Core2".... My Arse!!! :rofl:



Of all the games for intel to have no excuse for getting beaten by AMD that is A#1.

---

now I want to play Crysis on a PII, a C2Q & a Ci7 :D :up:

whats up with the weird Monical get up?

I am Australian too and I would expect that from some punk kid in this country not a fellow Aussie.........its just weird man!

Kinda make you look like you begging for a Left:slap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

whats up with the weird Monical get up?

I am Australian too and I would expect that from some punk kid in this country not a fellow Aussie.........its just weird man!

---

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=192842

So what are you saying that's Marijuana in the Background and you want to keep your identity secret?:D:sofa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

So what are you saying that's Marijuana in the Background and you want to keep your identity secret?:D:sofa:

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl: :p: :rofl:

the neighborhood college kids call me 1-Eyed McWeedy! :p: :ROTF:

I think what some of the intel fanboys are forgetting is that PII is a huge step in the right direction for amd. Users that already have an amd platform or want to upgrade are finally given a cheaper alternative. I like choices :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Ok, I can wind the argument down a bit then I suppose.


I must say though, Crysis was one of the games in which I most noticed the difference between my AMD and Intel rigs which is interesting because:

1) That agrees with Anand's results

2) Crysis supposedly "plays best on intel Core2".... My Arse!!! :rofl:



Of all the games for intel to have no excuse for getting beaten by AMD that is A#1.

---

Ok let's see the veracity of your statement:

By the way this is platform cost for the test systems:

Ci7 = $1420
C2Q = $1155
PHII = $1149

Anand:

Quote:

---

Our Phenom II and Intel Core 2 Quad platforms are within $6 of each other. We fully realize the pricing of the Phenom II X4 940 competes with the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400, not Q9550, but we are looking at platform costs here. Of course, we could debate the various component choices for several pages and yes, the platform costs could shrink on either side. We did not use rebates in our pricing and all costs were gathered from Newegg on 1/29/09. We think our selections offer the best blend of price, performance, compatibility, and quality right now.

---

1680x1050 - 2x AA

Quote:

---

At 1680x1050, all three platforms are clustered together in single card and CrossFire configurations. We also see why a single GPU card can be a better value than a dual GPU solution at this resolution in certain games. It is not until we overclock that we notice some separation between the platforms with the i7 taking a decent lead but its minimum frame rates do not improve compared to a single card setup. However, our Phenom II setup offers the best minimum frame rates when overclocked and actually offers a slight improvement over its single card scores.

Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 2% and minimum frame rates decrease 12% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has a decrease of 1% in average frame rates and 19% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 8% and minimum rates decrease by 20%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 22%~36% improvement in average frame rates with the Core i7 benefiting the greatest.

---

1920x1200 - 2x AA

Quote:

---

Our 1920x1200 test follows a similar pattern with all three solutions equal in single card testing and CrossFire showing a slight advantage to the i7. The Phenom II is slightly ahead of the Q9550 when overclocked although it is at a 7% clock speed disadvantage. We have noticed the CryEngine 2 will respond to improved memory bandwidth and latencies as we clock up the processors. The i7 holds a 14% advantage in average frame rates while the Phenom II once again impresses us with the best minimum frame rates when overclocked. However, not having a 20fps minimum frame rate is a disappointment with our multi-GPU setups. The NVIDIA 260/285 solutions scale better in SLI than the ATI HD 4870 products. We hope that ATI can improve their drivers for this game.

Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 20% but minimum frame rates do not change for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 17% in average frame rates and a decrease of 6% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 27% and minimum rates increase 18%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 14%~22% improvement in average frame rates with the Core i7 benefiting the most.

After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise. Of course, if you have the funds, we would recommend the i7 platform for best possible performance.

---

So is this what you mean by AMD beating Intel? Lol, how could interpretation be so lopsided? I mean, it's not difficult to relate the the data to the reviewer's remarks. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Ok let's see the veracity of your statement:

By the way this is platform cost for the test systems:

Ci7 = $1420
C2Q = $1155
PHII = $1149

---

u lost the context of his post genius - he meant beaten RE: smoothness :poke: :stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Ok let's see the veracity of your statement:

By the way this is platform cost for the test systems:

Ci7 = $1420
C2Q = $1155
PHII = $1149

---

Yep, looks right to me... AMD has highest min fps in both graphs, and smoother gameplay was confirmed by both myself and Anand, so I would call that a win for AMD. :)


Of course if you feel the need to continuously fall back on the charts you cherish so much then by all means do so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Yep, looks right to me... AMD has highest min fps in both graphs, and smoother gameplay was confirmed by both myself and Anand, so I would call that a win for AMD. :)


Of course if you feel the need to continuously fall back on the charts you cherish so much then by all means do so...

---

that plus the *only* number that the C2Q gets higher is the OC'd CF config @ max fps on the lower settings

all other numbers/configs PII wins

well done Zucker2k :clap: care to reload & shoot ur other foot now? :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

that plus the *only* number that the C2Q gets higher is the OC'd CF config @ max fps on the lower settings

all other numbers/configs PII wins

well done Zucker2k :clap: care to reload & shoot ur other foot now? :p:

---

You're too good... I can't tell if you are with me or against me half the time.


What impresses me the most is that Phenom II sustains higher min fps while being clocked lower than either of its competitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Yep, looks right to me... AMD has highest min fps in both graphs, and smoother gameplay was confirmed by both myself and Anand, so I would call that a win for AMD. :)


Of course if you feel the need to continuously fall back on the charts you cherish so much then by all means do so...

---

I know you guys despise [H], but would it kill AT to show us the entire graph of data, instead of showing superficial bar graphs?

There is OBVIOUSLY data collection somewhere, but there is no accountability if we can't see the actual data used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

that plus the *only* number that the C2Q gets higher is the OC'd CF config @ max fps on the lower settings

all other numbers/configs PII wins

well done Zucker2k :clap: care to reload & shoot ur other foot now? :p:

---

It must be halloween or something; the jokers are out tonite. I guess Ci7 is not Intel huh? Cared to read the last sentence of that quote? Oh, for your information, the i7 at 2.66 Ghz had significantly less clocks than the other cpus.

Edit: If you know any thing about charts, there's something called margin of error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Ok let's see the veracity of your statement:

By the way this is platform cost for the test systems:

Ci7 = $1420
C2Q = $1155
PHII = $1149

Anand:


1680x1050 - 2x AA


1920x1200 - 2x AA
So is this what you mean by AMD beating Intel? Lol, how could interpretation be so lopsided? I mean, it's not difficult to relate the the data to the reviewer's remarks. Oh well.

---

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

here is a very new 'concept' for u: ppl make posts containing poor spelling, grammar & english on this very forum..mm.. probably every second.

u got that? good:

a) iandh was refering to smoothness PII vs C2Q
b) so was the OP - yes I know the thread title says Ci7, but thats not what he meant - believe it or not poor spelling, grammar, english enters thread titles as well

is that crystal clear now?
Ci7 > PII : check
AMD supporters are aware of this : check
PII smoother than C2Q : check
u aware of this : FAIL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

It must be halloween or something; the jokers are out tonite. I guess Ci7 is not Intel huh? Cared to read the last sentence of that quote? Oh, for your information, the i7 at 2.66 Ghz had significantly less clocks than the other cpus.

Edit: If you know any thing about charts, there's something called margin of error.

---

you need to pick an argument and stick to it. first its phenom II is not smoother. then its core 2 and phenom II are the same. then its core 2 is better than phenom II. then its i7 beats everything. now its the i7 is clocked lower than the rest. while you might as well give the phenom II a win in everything since the oced core 2 is .3ghz more while the stock i7 is .34 less than a stock phenom II. and since when does stock matter to you? and now margin of error? you are now saying that the graphs are wrong and their data is wrong and if they ran the tests again they would get different results? im sure they ran them more than once to confirm them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

here is a very new 'concept' for u: ppl make posts containing poor spelling, grammar & english on this very forum..mm.. probably every second.

u got that? good:

a) iandh was refering to smoothness PII vs C2Q
b) so was the OP - yes I know the thread title says Ci7, but thats not what he meant - believe it or not poor spelling, grammar, english enters thread titles as well

is that crystal clear now?
Ci7 > PII : check
AMD supporters are aware of this : check
PII smoother than C2Q : check
u aware of this : FAIL

---

hmmmmm nice post but sorry it won't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

here is a very new 'concept' for u: ppl make posts containing poor spelling, grammar & english on this very forum..mm.. probably every second.

u got that? good:

a) iandh was refering to smoothness PII vs C2Q
b) so was the OP - yes I know the thread title says Ci7, but thats not what he meant - believe it or not poor spelling, grammar, english enters thread titles as well

is that crystal clear now?
Ci7 > PII : check
AMD supporters are aware of this : check
PII smoother than C2Q : check
u aware of this : FAIL

---

Genius, Anandtech did these tests in order to prove which platform was "smoother." Ahah! Thanks for educating me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

you need to pick an argument and stick to it. first its phenom II is not smoother. then its core 2 and phenom II are the same. then its core 2 is better than phenom II. then its i7 beats everything. now its the i7 is clocked lower than the rest. while you might as well give the phenom II a win in everything since the oced core 2 is .3ghz more while the stock i7 is .34 less than a stock phenom II. and since when does stock matter to you? and now margin of error? you are now saying that the graphs are wrong and their data is wrong and if they ran the tests again they would get different results? im sure they ran them more than once to confirm them.

---

So a 40fps means nothing but Ifps all of a sudden means something? Good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

here is a very new 'concept' for u: ppl make posts containing poor spelling, grammar & english on this very forum..mm.. probably every second.

u got that? good:

a) iandh was refering to smoothness PII vs C2Q
b) so was the OP - yes I know the thread title says Ci7, but thats not what he meant - believe it or not poor spelling, grammar, english enters thread titles as well

---

a) correct
b) I listed the article author, the name of the article, and a quote from the article... could be seen as misleading but I was just trying to get across the most info with the least thread title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Genius, Anandtech did these tests in order to prove which platform was "smoother." Ahah! Thanks for educating me.

---

no probs! anytime! :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

hmmmmm nice post but sorry it won't work.

---

u lost me there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Edit: If you know any thing about charts, there's something called margin of error.

---

yeah. pity they dont show a margin of error in ur favour huh? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

you need to pick an argument and stick to it. first its phenom II is not smoother. then its core 2 and phenom II are the same. then its core 2 is better than phenom II. then its i7 beats everything. now its the i7 is clocked lower than the rest. while you might as well give the phenom II a win in everything since the oced core 2 is .3ghz more while the stock i7 is .34 less than a stock phenom II. and since when does stock matter to you? and now margin of error? you are now saying that the graphs are wrong and their data is wrong and if they ran the tests again they would get different results? im sure they ran them more than once to confirm them.

---

Lol man,you summed it all so well that it begs to be sigged asap :D :up: !

And I think you are wasting your time with him...
But it's kinda fun,sitting back,looking how he shoots himself in the other foot :D (nice one tiro_uspsss :D).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

a) correct
b) I listed the article author, the name of the article, and a quote from the article... could be seen as misleading but I was just trying to get across the most info with the least thread title.

---

exactly - & with that in mind, its kinda hard at the same time to convey: PII > C2Q RE: smoother :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Genius, Anandtech did these tests in order to prove which platform was "smoother." Ahah! Thanks for educating me.

---

No, Anand did the tests to show CF performance, then I found the article and made a thread here using cherry picked info from it for the sole reason of irritating YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

u lost me there

---

no matter what anyone says he will find a way to argue back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

No, Anand did the tests to show CF performance, then I found the article and made a thread here using cherry picked info from it for the sole reason of irritating YOU.

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

why u devious, sadistic lil *bleeeep*

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

no matter what anyone says he will find a way to argue back.

---

ahhh hehe gotcha :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

ahhh hehe gotcha :up:

---

The arguments in this thread have gone totally off track and then back again so many times that hardly we what understand each saying other now are.

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Dude, you're late to this party; and while you think you're making sense, you're not. So what is your argument. The tests were not "smoothness," it was an observation the reviewer made and fanboys saw it and jumped on it; mind you, this is was against the data. So if you choose to ignore the data and concentrate on minimum fps and then proceed to draw conclusions that these mean PHII is smoother, then you're an idiot. But I bet you're not because I believe you're mature enough to not base conclusions on two games in which differences in framerates is like 1fps. Grow up already

---

Why would we need to draw conclusions? We were told so in plain english by the author of the article... several times as a matter of fact.

On top of that, several people in this thread including myself have tested AMD and intel systems side-by-side personally and extensively and experienced similar results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Dude, you're late to this party; and while you think you're making sense, you're not. So what is your argument. The tests were not "smoothness," it was an observation the reviewer made and fanboys saw it and jumped on it; mind you, this is was against the data. So if you choose to ignore the data and concentrate on minimum fps and then proceed to draw conclusions that these mean PHII is smoother, then you're an idiot. But I bet you're not because I believe you're mature enough to not base conclusions on two games in which differences in framerates is like 1fps. Grow up already

---

did you read it? and weren't you saying no name calling on like page 3? and seriously now you still think that because average fps is higher then it means its smoother. fine have fun on a cpu that gets 1 fps one second then 1000 the next then 1 then 1000...... ill be happy with my constant 60 fps although its gonna be about 440 fps below the average of your cpu.

Quote:

---

After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

The arguments in this thread have gone totally off track and then back again so many times that hardly we what understand each saying other now are.

:shrug:

---

thats cause of ppl like....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Dude, you're late to this party;

---

oh! hello there! speaking of the devil, iandh was just saying.. yaddayadda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

and while you think you're making sense, you're not.

---

that made sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

So what is your argument. The tests were not "smoothness," it was an observation the reviewer made and fanboys saw it and jumped on it

---

fanboys aside - whats wrong with the reviewer making & stating an observation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

mind you, this is was against the data. So if you choose to ignore the data and concentrate on minimum fps and then proceed to draw conclusions that these mean PHII is smoother,

---

the reviewer made the observation without factoring in min fps:

Quote:

---

When it came to actual game play experiences, we thought the Phenom II 940 was clearly the better choice in Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts and Crysis Warhead due to minimum frame rate advantages and fluidity of game play

---

I read that as 2 *seperate* factors that the reviewer notes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

then you're an idiot.

---

as roofsniper mentioned, u said no name calling - not that I care the least, but considering the level of daftness u've already shown, plus now hypocrisy... wow.. & then u question my maturity ROFL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

did you read it? and weren't you saying no name calling on like page 3? and seriously now you still think that because average fps is higher then it means its smoother. fine have fun on a cpu that gets 1 fps one second then 1000 the next then 1 then 1000...... ill be happy with my constant 60 fps although its gonna be about 440 fps below the average of your cpu.

---

So according to you, a 50fps difference makes no difference but 1fps (36fps compared to 35fps) all of a sudden becomes so noticeabe it warrants a thread in the AMD section in order to boost the ego of some disgruntled fanboys with a complex about their hardware? Before you ask me what I mean, let me tell you that you're known to have said several times how max fps means nothing. So you answer this question, based on your own illogical logic: does the difference between 1fps max and 100fps max make a difference. Like I said before, irrationality is not my forte.

@Tiro: I didn't call names, however, I'm beginning to think you may actually have earned that title.

1fps = smoothness.

Somebody sig that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

So according to you, a 50fps difference makes no difference but 1fps (36fps compared to 35fps) all of a sudden becomes so noticeabe it warrants a thread in the AMD section in order to boost the ego of some disgruntled fanboys with a complex about their hardware? Before you ask me what I mean, let me tell you that you're known to have said several times how max fps means nothing. So you answer this question, based on your own illogical logic: does the difference between 1fps max and 100fps max make a difference. Like I said before, irrationality is not my forte.

---

I didnt look at the pretty charts - can u show me where the C2Q config got 50fps more than PII?

*psst* this is a rational, logical question :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

I didnt look at the pretty charts - can u show me where the C2Q config got 50fps more than PII?

*psst* this is a rational, logical question :yepp:

---

Like i said many times in the past,you people are wasting your time with Zucker.He has now entered the name calling stage,who knows whats next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

So according to you, a 50fps difference makes no difference but 1fps (36fps compared to 35fps) all of a sudden becomes so noticeabe it warrants a thread in the AMD section in order to boost the ego of some disgruntled fanboys with a complex about their hardware? Before you ask me what I mean, let me tell you that you're known to have said several times how max fps means nothing. So you answer this question, based on your own illogical logic: does the difference between 1fps max and 100fps max make a difference. Like I said before, irrationality is not my forte.

---

ok please stop posting. they say laughing is good for your health but i swear after reading your posts i think i might live forever. no where did i say 1 fps was such a difference. you know the reviewer isn't even basing their claims on the results they are based them on what happened during the review and how it looked. and find a time where i have even said the word max in this entire thread. never once have i said max fps means nothing. max fps actually paints the picture. you might have cpu A with a max of 80 fps and a min of 15 fps and an average of 55 fps. then cpu B has a max of 65 fps and a min of 45 fps and an average of 55 fps. which one do you want? and even that doesn't have much to do with it because it has more to do with how it is the entire time not just the high points and low points. im just going off what the reviewer said it felt and looked like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

I didnt look at the pretty charts - can u show me where the C2Q config got 50fps more than PII?

*psst* this is a rational, logical question :yepp:

---

See, you wouldn't understand, so stop wasting my time. Roofsniper should know what I'm talking about. You have no idea what this discussion is about. And oh, since you deemed it important to quote it, I believe you see no relationship between minimum framerates and fluidity? Like I said; you've earned it, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Dude, you're late to this party; and while you think you're making sense, you're not. So what is your argument. The tests were not "smoothness," it was an observation the reviewer made and fanboys saw it and jumped on it; mind you, this is was against the data. So if you choose to ignore the data and concentrate on minimum fps and then proceed to draw conclusions that these mean PHII is smoother, then you're an idiot. But I bet you're not because I believe you're mature enough to not base conclusions on two games in which differences in framerates is like 1fps. Grow up already

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

@Tiro: I didn't call names, however, I'm beginning to think you may actually have earned that title.

---

i'm sorry, my eyes must be screwing up

btw, I did a quick scan of C2Q vs PII, chart fps - no 50fps diff anywhere... what are u gonna do, now that u cant walk? (seeing as u shot urself in ur 2nd foot)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

that plus the *only* number that the C2Q gets higher is the OC'd CF config @ max fps on the lower settings

all other numbers/configs PII wins

well done Zucker2k :clap: care to reload & shoot ur other foot now? :p:

---

O;h My Goodness my Guiness:rofl::toast2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

See, you wouldn't understand, so stop wasting my time. Roofsniper should know what I'm talking about. You have no idea what this discussion is about. And oh, since you deemed it important to quote it, I believe you see no relationship between minimum framerates and fluidity? Like I said; you've earned it, as far as I'm concerned.

---

oh snap! I just looked @ ur sig HAHA - nooow I understand why all the hate :rolleyes: :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

I didn't call names

---

o rly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Dude, you're late to this party; and while you think you're making sense, you're not. So what is your argument. The tests were not "smoothness," it was an observation the reviewer made and fanboys saw it and jumped on it; mind you, this is was against the data. So if you choose to ignore the data and concentrate on minimum fps and then proceed to draw conclusions that these mean PHII is smoother, then you're an idiot. But I bet you're not because I believe you're mature enough to not base conclusions on two games in which differences in framerates is like 1fps. Grow up already

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

The tests were not "smoothness," it was an observation the reviewer made and fanboys saw it and jumped on it; mind you, this is was against the data. So if you choose to ignore the data and concentrate on minimum fps and then proceed to draw conclusions that these mean PHII is smoother, then you're an idiot. But I bet you're not because I believe you're mature enough to not base conclusions on two games in which differences in framerates is like 1fps. Grow up already

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

@Tiro: I didn't call names, however, I'm beginning to think you may actually have earned that title.

1fps = smoothness.

Somebody sig that.

---

i knew you would sneak in a ninja edit once again. also whats against the data? no one is dwelling on min fps. its just part of the idea. i have explained it to you many times that it is about consistency and not about the higher average. if the averages are very close like 1 fps as you say then it comes down to which one displays them at a stable rate. and just spitting out frames as soon as they are processed doesn't seem smooth to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

i'm sorry, my eyes must be screwing up

btw, I did a quick scan of C2Q vs PII, chart fps - no 50fps diff anywhere... what are u gonna do, now that u cant walk? (seeing as u shot urself in ur 2nd foot)

---

Drop it Tiro, that statement was addressed to roofsniper who knows exactly what I mean; unless he edits his posts, I'll put up the quote; roof, me and you know you didn't say that in this thread; but your argument has always been that max fps means nothing so why are you jumping all over this 1fps? I guess the argument now is that the difference between "smoothness" and "lagness" (so to speak) is 1fps? :clap: :rofl: :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

oh snap! I just looked @ ur sig HAHA - nooow I understand why all the hate :rolleyes: :cool:

---

I bet you went cross-eyed when you saw my results, right? Tell me the truth! :rofl: :rofl: I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you guys. Shoot, I'm spitting some sig-worthy stuff tonite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Drop it Tiro, that statement was addressed to roofsniper who knows exactly what I mean; unless he edits his posts, I'll put up the quote; roof, me and you know you didn't say that in this thread; but your argument has always been that max fps means nothing so why are you jumping all over this 1fps? I guess the argument now is that the difference between "smoothness" and "lagness" (so to speak) is 1fps? :clap: :rofl: :rofl:

---

find this mythical quote you speak of. id like to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Drop it Tiro, that statement was addressed to roofsniper who knows exactly what I mean; unless he edits his posts, I'll put up the quote; roof, me and you know you didn't say that in this thread; but your argument has always been that max fps means nothing so why are you jumping all over this 1fps? I guess the argument now is that the difference between "smoothness" and "lagness" (so to speak) is 1fps? :clap: :rofl: :rofl:

---

drop it? u want me to drop it after calling me an idiot?

keep dreaming.. keep posting in here, & I'll show u how I 'drop it'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

drop it? u want me to drop it after calling me an idiot?

keep dreaming.. keep posting in here, & I'll show u how I 'drop it'

---

In living color! Good job; let's see what you can do.

Yea do us a favor and take your negative B.S back into the news thread where you can probably get away with it!

You will get lynched in here we don't want any Bull Shi**t in our only haven on the forum from constant bashing from Intel creeps that feel they need to Flex their E-Penis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

In living color! Good job; let's see what you can do.

---

:up: post allll the bs u want - u appear to be pro at that :)

well zucker i went to the smoothness thread for you and searched for the word max. even tho i never said anything relating to the max fps in this thread which you were accusing me of i thought id show you what i said before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

maybe but if it is an outlier compared to the rest of the data then it shouldn't be considered. the min and max can paint a picture but it doesn't always come down to that. anyone have any ideas on how to test this idea? i had one idea but i don't have a core 2 to test it.

---

i see nothing wrong with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

not necessarily. if one system has just one problem then the min will be set low and won't be a good representation. its more of what is happening in split seconds over the period of the entire trial.

---

nothing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

its not just the min and max its what is happening every single second not just during two different times during the bench.

if someone with a core 2 could run fraps and record the frames times and run 3d mark 06 it would be nice. then you could see the differences between each frame instead of just the fps values.

---

nope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

there are many intel fanboys as well but that has nothing to do with the topic. :confused:and yes people use intel in video card reviews. why? because in video card reviews you make graphs to show fps. if intel gives more fps then the graph will show that the card has a higher fps. video card reviews have nothing to do with the smoothness of a cpu. most people are trying to show that the latest card has the highest fps as possible so people will buy them.



i think you are forgetting the point. i am talking about smoothness here. not how fast a task can finish that has absolutely nothing to do with how smooth it is. and i am not talking about min and max fps either. what does that have to do with it? lets say you have an amd getting a max of 50 fps and a min of 40 fps and an average of 45 fps. then you have an intel getting a max of 70 fps and a min of 45 fps and an average of 50 fps. how big of a change is the drop from 70 fps to 45 fps going to be? you will be able to tell thats for sure. even if the amd has a lower minimum fps and a lower maximum if it can keep the frames coming out at a more consistent pace and within a reasonable amount of the intel cpu it should be smoother. its not like its that easy of a test to find out which is smoother. the only info we have right now are neutral people saying that amd is smoother when they have tested them side by side and some people switching to amd because they think its smoother. unless you can have some info to disprove this i don't know what you are trying to say. just because one gets a higher ammount of fps doesn't mean it will be smoother. especially if the fps changes around by a dramatic amount. only way i can think of testing this is by taking fps measurements at many different intervals and comparing them. because by comparing max fps average fps and min fps there is no way to tell which one is smoother.

---

hmmmm?

Please just stop the useless, pointless arguing and THANK YOU FOR DERAILING THE THREAD once again :rolleyes:

Zucker take your personal fights someplace else please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Drop it Tiro, that statement was addressed to roofsniper who knows exactly what I mean; unless he edits his posts, I'll put up the quote; roof, me and you know you didn't say that in this thread; but your argument has always been that max fps means nothing so why are you jumping all over this 1fps? I guess the argument now is that the difference between "smoothness" and "lagness" (so to speak) is 1fps?

---

The thing is that when a system that gets higher avg fps is also getting lower min fps, that gives it a larger fps delta, which means less framerate stability by definition. How that translates into real world performance is subjective, which is where the author's comments come in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

In living color! Good job; let's see what you can do.

---

Do you really want to see Zucker? I can arrange this! Please leave peacefully:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

well zucker i went to the smoothness thread for you and searched for the word max. even tho i never said anything relating to the max fps in this thread which you were accusing me of i thought id show you what i said before.

i see nothing wrong with this.

nothing here.

nope

hmmmm?

---

oh noooes! but .. but.. he's got no feet left!! whats he gonna shot off now?!? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

oh noooes! but .. but.. he's got no feet left!! whats he gonna shot off now?!? :D

---

Is this like the script in the Holy Grail? Should I get popcorn?

Z: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow b@st@rs! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
R: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Z: I'm invincible!
R: You're a loon.

Thanks roof, it's somewhere in that last quote. I'll leave the reading to you. As far as your logic its already established that a large gap between frames would lead to that symptom; but your argument assumes that the drop from 70 t0 45 fps happens abruptly, which may not be the case at all. But here is the OP taking 1fps to mean smoother gameplay for PHII and all of you are defending it while making different arguments on the side. Another logic is that, a fast processor is bad for gaming because in conjunction with the gpu, certain frames would be rendered faster where as other frames may be rendered slowly due to the gpu (because the processor is too powerful anyway) having problems rendering that part of a game faster?

Edit: Yawn: Off to bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

But here is the OP taking 1fps to mean smoother gameplay for PHII

---

did u not read before?? :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

here is a very new 'concept' for u: ppl make posts containing poor spelling, grammar & english on this very forum..mm.. probably every second.

u got that? good:

a) iandh was refering to smoothness PII vs C2Q
b) so was the OP - yes I know the thread title says Ci7, but thats not what he meant - believe it or not poor spelling, grammar, english enters thread titles as well

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

a) correct
b) I listed the article author, the name of the article, and a quote from the article... could be seen as misleading but I was just trying to get across the most info with the least thread title.

---

my goodness, I'm even repeating myself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Thanks roof, it's somewhere in that last quote. I'll leave the reading to you. As far as your logic its already established that a large gap between frames would lead to that symptom; but your argument assumes that the drop from 70 t0 45 fps happens abruptly, which may not be the case at all. But here is the OP taking 1fps to mean smoother gameplay for PHII and all of you are defending it while making different arguments on the side. Another logic is that, a fast processor is bad for gaming because in conjunction with the gpu, certain frames would be rendered faster where as other frames may be rendered slowly due to the gpu (because the processor is too powerful anyway) having problems rendering that part of a game faster?

---

Why are you grasping so tightly to that 1fps? That is a tiny part of the equation... a small piece of a larger puzzle.

I didn't "take 1fps to mean Phenom II is smoother", I read Anand's words that Phenom II is smoother, and agreed with them because they matched my experiences.

You're putting uneccessary spin on my thread and twisting the meaning of my posts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Why are you grasping so tightly to that 1fps? That is a tiny part of the equation... a small piece of a larger puzzle.

I didn't "take 1fps to mean Phenom II is smoother", I read Anand's words that Phenom II is smoother, and agreed with them because they matched my experiences.

You're putting uneccessary spin on my thread and twisting the meaning of my posts...

---

:idea: a sign that he's clutching at straws.. tales of a desperate man fighting a losing battle OH DAH MANTEEE!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Edit: Yawn: Off to bed.

---

read: I got :owned:


:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

did u not read before?? :





my goodness, I'm even repeating myself!

---

See below...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Why are you grasping so tightly to that 1fps? That is a tiny part of the equation... a small piece of a larger puzzle.

I didn't "take 1fps to mean Phenom II is smoother", I read Anand's words that Phenom II is smoother, and agreed with them because they matched my experiences.

You're putting uneccessary spin on my thread and twisting the meaning of my posts...

---

You both refresh your memory: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=91

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Thanks roof, it's somewhere in that last quote. I'll leave the reading to you. As far as your logic its already established that a large gap between frames would lead to that symptom; but your argument assumes that the drop from 70 t0 45 fps happens abruptly, which may not be the case at all. But here is the OP taking 1fps to mean smoother gameplay for PHII and all of you are defending it while making different arguments on the side. Another logic is that, a fast processor is bad for gaming because in conjunction with the gpu, certain frames would be rendered faster where as other frames may be rendered slowly due to the gpu (because the processor is too powerful anyway) having problems rendering that part of a game faster?

Edit: Yawn: Off to bed.

---

i am saying that it is possible to have a huge drop like that and that would explain why it could have higher average fps numbers but not look smooth. here we are dealing with fps averages that have a difference of 1 or less fps. so the average is very similar so it comes down to what happens during the course of the process. i think because of the imc and the high bandwidth of the amd cpus it would be more consistent. intel is processing the info and shooting it at as soon as it is done. which is what amd is doing as well. but at times when the cpu is busy and loaded up like during some action scene or explosion or something it might choke. the core 2 cpu could suffer from low fsb bandwidth and the lack of the imc. so even tho it is throwing the frames out as fast as possible it is being held down. amd on the other hand can let them out with a consistent speed because of the imc and the high bandwidth. so when they action scenes come along the fps values will drop on both but because the core 2 is getting a higher average already and because it is being held down due to bandwidth issues it will choke during times. this is my explanation and reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

See below...

You both refresh your memory: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=91

---

What are you trying to show me? All I said in that post was "I don't particularly count min FPS to mean smoother".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

See below...

You both refresh your memory: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=91

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

So if you count min fps as smoother (which I don't particularly btw), then in this case my title holds true. With PII and i7 920 both clocked at 4Ghz, PII gets higher min fps- so your attempt to invalidate my thread title... is, well, invalidated. :p:

---

dude, u need to ease up on shooting ur body parts, there cant be many left judging by this thread

Another AMD news thread was just locked down, wont be long till this one is locked. :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i am saying that it is possible to have a huge drop like that and that would explain why it could have higher average fps numbers but not look smooth. here we are dealing with fps averages that have a difference of 1 or less fps. so the average is very similar so it comes down to what happens during the course of the process. i think because of the imc and the high bandwidth of the amd cpus it would be more consistent. intel is processing the info and shooting it at as soon as it is done. which is what amd is doing as well. but at times when the cpu is busy and loaded up like during some action scene or explosion or something it might choke. the core 2 cpu could suffer from low fsb bandwidth and the lack of the imc. so even tho it is throwing the frames out as fast as possible it is being held down. amd on the other hand can let them out with a consistent speed because of the imc and the high bandwidth. so when they action scenes come along the fps values will drop on both but because the core 2 is getting a higher average already and because it is being held down due to bandwidth issues it will choke during times. this is my explanation and reasoning.

---

Look at the chart I posted and tell me the differences (gap) between min/max for both platforms and then try to justify your answer once again.

@iandh go back and read you OP too and it should be even clearer what your attributing your smooth gameplay to; be sure to read the quotes you bolded, then come back and read the link I posted once again. You should see a pattern.

Would you drama queens cut the crap and go

I think Intel might have another lawsuit on their hands, their products seem to cause brain damage to the hard core fanboys.

Anyway, my OWN personal experience with both the X4 and various Intel quads has always been the same, gaming on the AMD box was indeed nicer, less frame variation. I suggest people actually try both platforms before they go off the deep end.

And if you don't agree, that's perfectly fine then why come here and come unglued because AMD might actually be better than Intel at something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

they say laughing is good for your health but i swear after reading your posts i think i might live forever.

---

:ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

dude, u need to ease up on shooting ur body parts, there cant be many left judging by this thread

---

Read the OP too, the guy is an adult and he made certain attributes to his smoothness and you come out from under a rock and say ignore it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

You should see a pattern.

---

I see a pattern. Blood spatter from you shooting yourself several times. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Look at the chart I posted and tell me the differences (gap) between min/max for both platforms and then try to justify your answer once again.

@iandh go back and read you OP too and it should be even clearer what your attributing your smooth gameplay to; be sure to read the quotes you bolded, then come back and read the link I posted once again. You should see a pattern.

---

the only pattern I see is the one ur making: trolling & flame-baiting

last chance: get out, or ur next post I'll report u

Hey zucker I thought you were going to bed? :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

the only pattern I see is the one ur making: trolling & flame-baiting

last chance: get out, or ur next post I'll report u

---

Me trolling; you came out of nowhere and flame-baited me? You;re lucky I'm in no habit of reporting people. I dare you to do it. :rolleyes: My hunch is now fully confirmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

Hey zucker I thought you were going to bed? :p:

---

Just as I thought I was done, they called me back!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Look at the chart I posted and tell me the differences (gap) between min/max for both platforms and then try to justify your answer once again.

---

i see the chart. when looking at the oced results the amd system has a lower max and a higher min. the intel has a bigger gap. but still like i have said before this doesn't mean much it only paints the picture. the real thing is what happens during the period of the benchmark. look at all the drops and rises that will say something. intel may be constantly dropping and going back up but the min and max don't show this. but the reviewer did say that the phenom II system looked smoother and that the intel system had frame rate drops. its not shown in the graph but the reviewer says it and explains its hard to show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Me trolling; you came out of nowhere and flame-baited me? You;re lucky I'm in no habit of reporting people. I dare you to do it. :rolleyes:

Just as I thought I was done, they called me back!

---

done! post#141 = rude: name calling :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Just as I thought I was done, they called me back!

---

Ya know, if you are annoyed, you can just drop it. Don't think you're convincing anybody of anything, probably just annoying and getting annoyed at this point :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss

done! post#141 = rude: name calling :up:

---

If you hadn't proved me right, I would have thought you skipped it. :cool:

Ok lets go back to discussification, this has been the smoothest smoother thread so far so lets keep up the fun :up:

Looks around, ahh, there's the hat..

Hey guys, I just got a PM asking me to look thru this thread and 'remove the two bashers'
Do I have to go this far?
Time for the Intel guys to pack up and head over to Blue land and let these nice green people alone.
This isn't the news section, this is the AMD section and my personal opinion is that if you aren't interested in the AMD product get the hell out of here and leave these people alone.

Now to the AMD guys:
I read down thru page one here and God's truth it sounded like you were waiting and baiting some Blue guy to come in and start something so you take some of the responsibility also.

Let's keep it nice and friendly for all.
Thanks for reading.

i cant believe people r get work up over these result it basicly said they the PII 940 is competive with the q9550
they should have compare at 4ghz for both not the 4.25 and 3.9 what the h*ll is that, just to help confuse us, it means nothing they dont know if all q9550 clock the same and same with PII, wait they dont:rolleyes: a equal oc would be more useful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Now to the AMD guys:
I read down thru page one here and God's truth it sounded like you were waiting and baiting some Blue guy to come in and start something so you take some of the responsibility also.

---

yea the first page was really bad but i think it was because people are happy to see that even a reviewer has an opinion on this.

back on topic now as we tried in the last smoothness thread is there a possible way to test this? and maybe even show it on a chart!!!! :rolleyes:

So it looks like the jury has returned an 'AMD is smoother' verdict. Nice! Unfortunately it took 3 years deliberation, cuz even the A64 X2's were smoother than C2D's! Yep, that's the way I like my system, silky smooth. :D

This constant dram on this forum anymore leave allot to be desired I gotta tell you! Personally I could care less Intel or AMD.......Whatever:rolleyes:

In my mind a individual choice (Whatever that may be) is just that a individual choice and its that individuals God Given Right to be entitled to that and it is not for anyone to try to take it away from them or criticize because it does not coincide with their Personal Individual choice.......Why can no one respect this?


Dave .....as Far a what you said in regards to enticing Intel Kids into a fight with the Title I agree doubt that was the intention but I just knew there was gonna be drama up the Ying Yang as soon as I saw the Title:D:D

But you have to admit after all of these months past year whatever the whole smoother thing with Intel i7 just kills me:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

So it looks like the jury has returned an 'AMD is smoother' verdict. Nice! Unfortunately it took 3 years deliberation, cuz even the A64 X2's were smoother than C2D's! Yep, that's the way I like my system, silky smooth. :D

---

i think the HT and imc created this smoothness idea. which shouldn't be a debate once core 2 is considered obsolete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

This constant dram on this forum anymore leave allot to be desired I gotta tell you! Personally I could care less Intel or AMD.......Whatever:rolleyes:

In my mind a individual choice (Whatever that may be) is just that a individual choice and its that individuals God Given Right to be entitled to that and it is not for anyone to try to take it away from them or criticize because it does not coincide with their Personal Individual choice.......Why can no one respect this?


Dave .....as Far a what you said in regards to enticing Intel Kids into a fight with the Title I agree doubt that was the intention but I just knew there was gonna be drama up the Ying Yang as soon as I saw the Title:D:D

But you have to admit after all of these months past year whatever the whole smoother thing with Intel i7 just kills me:rofl:

---

I haven't tried the new AMD chip so i can't comment but as I said to the OP in a PM today, you want smooth, buy a dual socket board.. Now those are smooooothe!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I haven't tried the new AMD chip so i can't comment but as I said to the OP in a PM today, you want smooth, buy a dual socket board.. Now those are smooooothe!:D

---

Yeah some of us would love one of those :slobber: but they are a tad on the pricey side. I've promised myself one of them at some point though :D

You'd think after all this time, someone would have written a recorder that records FPS and logs it once/second so that this sort of question can be answered...

Honestly this B.S anymore Intel/AMD reminds me of 2 Five Year Olds.....I Know you are But What am I .............I know You Ara But What Am I?


Give me a Frigging Break with this nonsensical Bull Sh**t anymore...It's Stupid and quite F@cking Old Already!

Man, it is hot up in here!

Zucker, my friend, calm down. The results are right there and not that damning. In all but two games, AnandTech says the gameplay experience between the 940 and Q9550 were identical.

Anyways, I'm going to tuck my i7 920 in and call it a night. I think she's pretty tired from beating up on all these inferior Yorkfields and Denebs. :wasntme:

Just kidding! Good to see AMD back in da game! Hopefully next round, which unfortunately looks like 2011, will put the green back on top! :up:

Quote:

---

Just kidding! Good to see AMD back in da game! Hopefully next round, which unfortunately looks like 2011, will put the green back on top!

---

Not much left 'till 2012, eh? :rofl: