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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

lol ninja edit to save your face

---

No not really.

The sad part is that the WORDING you choose often makes you a troll. I had put something about your wording... but decided it wasn't worth bothering.

Just like replying to you is generally never worth the effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KELL5

hmmmm I seem to recall a pretty important person 'round here sigged



Can't for the life of me remember who though :p:

---

With all due respect to the owner of this forum, and no offense intended, that quote is BS, ignorance, and mob mentality all rolled into one.



I'll put it this way. If you sat me down in front of my Q6600 system and my Phenom 9950 system in a blind test , I could tell you in an instant which was which. There is not a single doubt in my mind.

I would be willing to perform this test and post a video but then a bunch of trolly trolls would come along and say it was staged, so it would be no use.

Either way, please don't come and post an obvious derailment/flame/troll post like this right after a mod posted a warning and we just got the thread back on track into a workable discussion. It does nothing but further prove the point that intel users are interested in nothing else but doing everything they can to ruin every good AMD discussion they come across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

.Either way, please don't come and post an obvious derailment/flame/troll post like this right after a mod posted a warning and we just got the thread back on track into a workable discussion. It does nothing but further prove the point that intel users are interested in nothing else but doing everything they can to ruin every good AMD discussion they come across.

---

Not at all, you've taken more from my statement than was required. I've never bashed amd on this forum, nor intel. I ain't a fanboy. I simply made a statement which is true, and in jest at that. No need to run to the rescue. No fire here. :up:

I've always agreed my phenom rig purrs along much nicer than my C2Q when multiple tasks are running. I also remember a few guys being slated here when they said similar. Nothing to worry about. Don't be so touchy maybe.

What I find a little perplexing is why if many people have known that Phenom runs very smooth and that now a website confirmed they feel the system feels very smooth........why we need tests again? I have a feeling people want to make it as difficult as possible to accept what many have said without tests and graphs. Lets just drag this out as long as possible.........there is a savior amongst us, he has come from afar with tidings of good will to teach us all.:rolleyes:

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KELL5

Not at all, you've taken more from my statement than was required. I've never bashed amd on this forum, nor intel. I ain't a fanboy. I simply made a statement which is true, and in jest at that. No need to run to the rescue. No fire here. :up:

---

That's why I tried to keep my post somewhat toned down. I wasn't sure if you were jesting or actually trying to cause a derailment.

The bottom line is that the quote "Phenom + BS = Smoother" may apply very well to a downtrodden AMD fanboy who is sad about his shrunken e-peen, but the quote becomes much harder to validate when "Phenom = Smoother" is uttered by a well known review site that is generally thought of as biased towards Intel.



Either way I know that I use my Phenom to game and my Q6600 for video encoding and crunching based upon my personal experience, and there isnt a single spec of BS involved. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

What I find a little perplexing is why if many people have known that Phenom runs very smooth and that now a website confirmed they feel the system feels very smooth........why we need tests again? I have a feeling people want to make it as difficult as possible to accept what many have said without tests and graphs. Lets just drag this out as long as possible.........there is a savior amongst us, he has come from afar with tidings of good will to teach us all.:rolleyes:

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

---

It's because some people are so fascinated with "who has the biggest graph" that if they chose to accept that "who has the biggest graph" is not the single binding force in the universe, it would cause their whole world to come crashing down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

No not really.

The sad part is that the WORDING you choose often makes you a troll. I had put something about your wording... but decided it wasn't worth bothering.

Just like replying to you is generally never worth the effort.

---

and your better?

its the first time you actually posted data regarding to this topic (including the thread from january), rather then calling everyone a troll that not agrees with your opinion.

I have my standpoint regarding to this topic, but im not so close minded that i call everyone a troll that has its own standpoint. I dont denie the possibility that phenom could be smoother then C2 or Ci7, but as it stands right now thers no evidence for that conclusion.

If there is sufficent data that proves any of the possible outcomes i accept it as fact. I am curious about that "phenom is smoother" ever since the first topic surfaced back in sept. 08.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

That's why I tried to keep my post somewhat toned down. I wasn't sure if you were jesting or actually trying to cause a derailment.

The bottom line is that the quote "Phenom + BS = Smoother" may apply very well to a downtrodden AMD fanboy who is sad about his shrunken e-peen, but the quote becomes much harder to validate when "Phenom = Smoother" is uttered by a well known review site that is generally thought of as biased towards Intel.



Either way I know that I use my Phenom to game and my Q6600 for video encoding and crunching based upon my personal experience, and there isnt a single spec of BS involved. :)

---

Couldn't agree with you more.

AMD FTW :up:

back on topic....I agree the tests here shouldn't be used to "rub it in the face" of intel users as such. I do however find it interesting to try and possibly source the reason for this "smoother" feel.

I never saw any data that said Intels offerings were smooth at all. So who says it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

I never saw any data that said Intels offerings were smooth at all. So who says it is?

---

Yeah there isn't any data saying intel systems are smooth and I am not going to go on just user opinion alone so they need to PROVE IT. I'm sure their battle will be up at least as steep of a hill as ours. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

What I find a little perplexing is why if many people have known that Phenom runs very smooth and that now a website confirmed they feel the system feels very smooth........why we need tests again? I have a feeling people want to make it as difficult as possible to accept what many have said without tests and graphs. Lets just drag this out as long as possible.........there is a savior amongst us, he has come from afar with tidings of good will to teach us all.:rolleyes:

---

the problem is that the only data we have to support our claims right now is user opinion. even tho AT said the phenom system looked smoother theres no actually data you can view. you can only go off of what is said. and as you can see below hornet even confirms this. we can say w/e we want but it won't be taken seriously until there is data to be shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

I dont denie the possibility that phenom could be smoother then C2 or Ci7, but as it stands right now thers no evidence for that conclusion.

If there is sufficent data that proves any of the possible outcomes i accept it as fact. I am curious about that "phenom is smoother" ever since the first topic surfaced back in sept. 08.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Yeah there isn't any data saying intel systems are smooth and I am not going to go on just user opinion alone so they need to PROVE IT. I'm sure their battle will be up at least as steep of a hill as ours. :D

---

thats exactly what Im saying........they need to figure out why AT found it smoother...why the I7 and Q wasnt as smooth... we dont have to find out anything,... its smooth already why should I question what I know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Yeah there isn't any data saying intel systems are smooth and I am not going to go on just user opinion alone so they need to PROVE IT. I'm sure their battle will be up at least as steep of a hill as ours. :D

---

the argument for saying intel systems are smooth is the fact that they get a higher average fps. and if both systems get the same average fps then they are equally smooth. the problem is that this isn't 100% true because you need to look at the big picture which this testing should show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

the problem is that the only data we have to support our claims right now is user opinion. even tho AT said the phenom system looked smoother theres no actually data you can view. you can only go off of what is said. and as you can see below hornet even confirms this. we can say w/e we want but it won't be taken seriously until there is data to be shown.

---

And I have to prove myself to whom??:rofl: tell me who the hell is anyone to question and make you prove anything.........let them find out on their own........Im not jumping through hoops for no :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing body:rolleyes:

not trying to dis you but Im just saying who cares what they think? lol

Just had to add we bought our cpu's before this tests was done by AT so it changes nothing for us.

I think that the focus on smoothnes should include the mouse and how the processor handles the unexpected. How responsive is the mouse on each processor if the processor works hard or if there is very much data that is sent to or from the cpu to other hardware. What happens if one thread is moved from one core to another core etc. If the game behaves as the developers has planned, it may be harder to understand how the cpu behaves.
Personally I think it is a communication thing. The mouse is an I/O operation and I/O operations need to complete before the CPU switches to another thread on that core if it is not made asynchronously. Threads need to be balanced if the cpu should be used effectively. If one thread does more work compared to another and they both need to synchronize, then this will delay both. If something happens in one thread and it slows down, this will slow down other threads until the unexpected has passed away.
Heavy traffic between the CPU and other hardware and the unexpected is more likely to show up.
If you have 200 FPS but the mouse readings are bad, the game will not feel smooth.

responsiveness and smoothness in games are two different things tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

the argument for saying intel systems are smooth is the fact that they get a higher average fps. and if both systems get the same average fps then they are equally smooth. the problem is that this isn't 100% true because you need to look at the big picture which this testing should show.

---

The funny thing is one would think that they all would be falling all over themselves making excuses for why the intel rig stuttered in Crysis, a game that supposedly "plays best on intel", but instead they bash the clean running AMD rig in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the Q9550 sucked on that title. :p:


I should edit my sig to my intel rig, and go over to the intel forum and post "Anand: Q9550 stutters in Crysis" (but not mention anything at all about AMD or PII), and then see what hilarity ensues. :D


I don't actually have the balls to do so though, it would probably irritate XS staff just a hair too much by doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

I think that the focus on smoothnes should include the mouse and how the processor handles the unexpected. How responsive is the mouse on each processor if the processor works hard or if there is very much data that is sent to or from the cpu to other hardware. What happens if one thread is moved from one core to another core etc. If the game behaves as the developers has planned, it may be harder to understand how the cpu behaves.
Personally I think it is a communication thing. The mouse is an I/O operation and I/O operations need to complete before the CPU switches to another thread on that core if it is not made asynchronously. Threads need to be balanced if the cpu should be used effectively. If one thread does more work compared to another and they both need to synchronize, then this will delay both. If something happens in one thread and it slows down, this will slow down other threads until the unexpected has passed away.
Heavy traffic between the CPU and other hardware and the unexpected is more likely to show up.
If you have 200 FPS but the mouse readings are bad, the game will not feel smooth.

---

Agreed. Come to think of it, the stuttering is more apparent on intel rigs for me when mousing, and not when strafing. In fact, when playing Crysis on my Q6600 rig I found myself using strafing more often as a crutch in aiming. Typically mousing requires more of a scene change than strafing, so perhaps that is a clue... dunno.

Ugh...please stop with the partisan b.s.

I'm patiently waiting for hard numbers that validate/refute the smooth claim. On the same token, there are also no numbers that validate/refute the notion that Intel stutters. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

Ugh...please stop with the partisan b.s.

I'm patiently waiting for hard numbers that validate/refute the smooth claim. On the same token, there are also no numbers that validate/refute the notion that Intel stutters. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

---

well we need a tester and a game/testing method. as hornet said we could ask JJ. im not sure who else could do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

Ugh...please stop with the partisan b.s.

I'm patiently waiting for hard numbers that validate/refute the smooth claim. On the same token, there are also no numbers that validate/refute the notion that Intel stutters. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

---

Yeah, I'm incredibly partisan when I have a whole closet of full of both AMD and intel hardware... I'm making fun of folks who are partisan, not being partisan myself. ;)

(unless of course I am partisan by being a member of the non-partisan party)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

and your better?

its the first time you actually posted data regarding to this topic (including the thread from january), rather then calling everyone a troll that not agrees with your opinion.

I have my standpoint regarding to this topic, but im not so close minded that i call everyone a troll that has its own standpoint. I dont denie the possibility that phenom could be smoother then C2 or Ci7, but as it stands right now thers no evidence for that conclusion.

If there is sufficent data that proves any of the possible outcomes i accept it as fact. I am curious about that "phenom is smoother" ever since the first topic surfaced back in sept. 08.

---

I don't call everybody a troll. Only people that intentionally derail threads. This would include you. Thank you for again confirming my opinion that you are a troll and really not worth bothering to reply to.

YOu can claim to be "open minded" but the problem is that your posts are not conducive to an active conversation about a topic; they make it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind and are not willing to contribute to the conversation in a positive manner. Sadly you don't realize that you can troll without actually having the blatant intent.

i don't know why everyone calls hornet a troll can we just drop it and stay on topic. i would be interested to see these results but right now we are going no where. find someone who could do testing for both systems and we need to think of a game/testing method.

The only thing I could contribute to this conversation is this...I don't know! Sure is interesting to view everyone's opinions though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i don't know why everyone calls hornet a troll can we just drop it and stay on topic. i would be interested to see these results but right now we are going no where. find someone who could do testing for both systems and we need to think of a game/testing method.

---

Chew* is in the process, as you know, of testing a Q6600, and a Ph II. Maybe we could find a testing method, and ask him to do it.

You know I just had a thought - if we indeed are testing for smoothness (and not raw performance), then the focus should not be on using the same game/hardware.
Think about it - GPU-intensive game; low-frame rate. Therefore, MORE time between each frame generated. One result.
OTOH, consider low GPU-intensive game; high-frame rate. Time between each frame generated will be considerably smaller. Another result.

Point is that we don't care about the differences, we are ONLY looking for the LACK of consistency in the time between each frame. This is why the focus is on the derivative of the data generated, not on the absolute values.
E.g. the focus is not on why a 60fps bench is different than 30fps bench. The focus is on which has a more WILD delta in the rate of frames generated, relatively. Taking the derivative of the data will make sure the differences are relative to the data sets.

Haha am I making sense here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raiderman

Chew* is in the process, as you know, of testing a Q6600, and a Ph II, maybe we could find a testing method, and ask him to do it.

---

yes but he is testing for performance. it is possible that he could change his systems up some to perform the test tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

You know I just had a thought - if we indeed are testing for smoothness (and not raw performance), then the focus should not be on using the same game/hardware.
Think about it - GPU-intensive game; low-frame rate. Therefore, MORE time between each frame generated. One result.
OTOH, consider low GPU-intensive game; high-frame rate. Time between each frame generated will be considerably smaller. Another result.

Point is that we don't care about the differences, we are ONLY looking for the LACK of consistency in the time between each frame. This is why the focus is on the derivative of the data generated, not on the absolute values.
E.g. the focus is not on why a 60fps bench is different than 30fps bench. The focus is on which has a more WILD delta in the rate of frames generated, relatively. Taking the derivative of the data will make sure the differences are relative to the data sets.

Haha am I making sense here?

---

we need a core 2 system that gets the same average fps as a phenom system. so each system would have the same performance. but then if you look at the chart and you can see the time it takes for each frame to be produced it will say more. in this situation a straight line would be the best results. showing that it took the same amount of time for every frame. so we are looking for the straightest possible line. a jagged line would show that the frames are coming out at random times instead of at a smooth rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Sadly you don't realize that you can troll without actually having the blatant intent.

---

Exactly.

I fail to understand why some of you here are so narrow minded, even simplistic. You want "hard numbers" otherwise you refuse to believe AMD can actually deliver a better experience. Being hyper fixated on bar graphs doesn't begin to paint the entire picture.

The doubters need to actually experience the systems themselves, otherwise quite honestly you're talking out your ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPuV5XMQnFw&

3:51- 4:29 that's how this thread is going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

Exactly.

I fail to understand why some of you here are so narrow minded, even simplistic. You want "hard numbers" otherwise you refuse to believe AMD can actually deliver a better experience. Being hyper fixated on bar graphs doesn't begin to paint the entire picture.

The doubters need to actually experience the systems themselves, otherwise quite honestly you're talking out your ass.

---

What is "narrow minded" about demanding proof? My point is that people can (and will) argue about opinions till the sun goes down, but hard numbers will stand the test of time (and hyperbole for that matter).

Mav, you're wasting your time. I know this, sorry I can't prove it to you. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

What is "narrow minded" about demanding proof? My point is that people can (and will) argue about opinions till the sun goes down, but hard numbers will stand the test of time (and hyperbole for that matter).

---

OT:
Man i would give an arm and a leg to base my diploma thesis on opinions instead of hardfacts and numbers, that would save so much time. :D

I'm planning around the April/May timeframe to get a phenom II. If nobody has done a frame to frame time analysis chart by then, I'll do one. A direct comparison of my q6600 and the phenom II at the same clockspeeds, with the same ram, same video card, same hard drive, same drivers (aside from mobo chipset of course), heck even the same friggin' power supply, chassis, and sata cables :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPuV5XMQnFw&

3:51- 4:29 that's how this thread is going.

---

That was hilarious...:up:

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

...but hard numbers will stand the test of time (and hyperbole for that matter).

---

Numbers are not the actual experience, obviously. If you want "proof" only by looking at graphs, good for you.

The user experience is what matters. Some of you are completely incapable of understanding that. Anyone that is in audio/video will tell you that specs are not the end all be all. In fact they don't mean a damn thing if the actual equipment sounds like crap. In fact people that only buy audio equipment because of S/N ratios and wattage ratings are idiots, although there are a lot of these types of buyers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

OT:
Man i would give an arm and a leg to base my diploma thesis on opinions instead of hardfacts and numbers, that would save so much time. :D

---

This is not a thesis. Do you think you could write your thesis on automobiles, I could read it, and find out what the best car out there was? You probably do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

I'm planning around the April/May timeframe to get a phenom II. If nobody has done a frame to frame time analysis chart by then, I'll do one. A direct comparison of my q6600 and the phenom II at the same clockspeeds, with the same ram, same video card, same hard drive, same drivers (aside from mobo chipset of course), heck even the same friggin' power supply, chassis, and sata cables :p:

---

Don't forget same mouse :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charged3800z24

Don't forget same mouse :p:

---

:doh: of course. And keyboard too :rofl:

So am I to understand that the reason the AMD is more "smooth" is because it fluctuates less from high fps to low fps? Wouldn't that mean that it is actually LESS powerful of a CPU as an intel because the intels are producing such high FPS that when they fall the same percentage of FPS as an AMD it actually is a larger number thus contributing to some sort of stutter?

For example, if a game is running between 30 and 90 fps on an intel and 25-50 on an AMD, it seems to me that the AMD might be more smooth but also less powerful of a processor? Am I missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

Numbers are not the actual experience, obviously. If you want "proof" only by looking at graphs, good for you.

The user experience is what matters. Some of you are completely incapable of understanding that. Anyone that is in audio/video will tell you that specs are not the end all be all. In fact they don't mean a damn thing if the actual equipment sounds like crap. In fact people that only buy audio equipment because of S/N ratios and wattage ratings are idiots, although there are a lot of these types of buyers.

---

Lol why are we suddenly talking about audio equipment? Or video? AVS and Head-Fi have some of the most stubborn and opinionated users on the Internet. What one person likes is not going to be the same as another likes, it comes down to preference. E.g. Grado fans vs. Senn fans. They will never agree with each other, and numbers or tech specs have no bearing (or relevance) to that discussion.

What we are talking about here has no subjectivity to it. If it truly is smoother, it will ALSO be reflected in the numbers. If we see that AMD has greater consistency in frame rate, backed by real data and not anecdotal evidence, then the discussion based on opinion is over. Numbers will be there to prove it. Likewise, if we see that AMD and Intel are similar in frame rate consistency, then well...there's always other stuff to argue about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charged3800z24

I can't believe this thread is still going.

---

There is actually is a serious conversation going on when you ignore the attempts to derail the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

Lol why are we suddenly talking about audio equipment?

---

You are completely incapable of grasping the analogy, not that I am surprised.

Quote:

---

AVS and Head-Fi have some of the most stubborn and opinionated users on the Internet

---

"stubborn and opinionated" that sounds familiar. :cool:

Actually Barrok brings up a good point. Say a scene varies from 30fps (most intensive areas) to 120fps (least intensive: looking at a wall in the corner). Let's say you make a timedemo out of this. The question is - does the discrepancy in GPU load affect the consistency of a smooth experience? Yes. Low minimum FPS is inherently less smooth, but it is not what we are trying to study. Therefore, we need a control application to compare the two.

1) Real-world example, where wild fluctations of average FPS occur (due to differing GPU loads)
vs 2) Synthetic load, where there are no wild fluctuations of average FPS, and thus the only fluctuation is the consistency of generating a certain, pre-set FPS.

E.g. synthetic "control" time demo that averages 60FPS, with little differences in GPU load. How consistent is the rate of frame generation (time/frame)?
Compare that control to another time demo where we EXPECT high and low GPU loads. Is the rate of frame generation just as consistent? And is this going to interfere with our study at hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barrok

So am I to understand that the reason the AMD is more "smooth" is because it fluctuates less from high fps to low fps? Wouldn't that mean that it is actually LESS powerful of a CPU as an intel because the intels are producing such high FPS that when they fall the same percentage of FPS as an AMD it actually is a larger number thus contributing to some sort of stutter?

For example, if a game is running between 30 and 90 fps on an intel and 25-50 on an AMD, it seems to me that the AMD might be more smooth but also less powerful of a processor? Am I missing something?

---

It is more framerate stability overall that is in discussion/arguement/firefight/whatever you want to call it right now, not necessarily a set percentage or anything like that. The original post linking to the Anandtech article I believe mentioned higher minimum framerates in some of the games tested. That isn't a sign of an inferior CPU. Not sure what you are getting at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

What we are talking about here has no subjectivity to it.

---

I'm not sure you realize how utterly ridiculous this statement is. Everything has some measure of subjectivity. You lose any shred of credibility saying this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

I'm not sure you realize how utterly ridiculous this statement is. Everything has some measure of subjectivity. You lose any shred of credibility saying this.

---

How much subjectivity should we factor into these tests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

It is more framerate stability overall that is in discussion/arguement/firefight/whatever you want to call it right now, not necessarily a set percentage or anything like that. The original post linking to the Anandtech article I believe mentioned higher minimum framerates in some of the games tested. That isn't a sign of an inferior CPU. Not sure what you are getting at.

---

For example, you guys have talked about Crysis Warhead right? With both the I7 and the P2 are head to head, both at 4.0 ghz (roughly) the I7 has a fps range of 19-76 while the P2 is 21-60. Right there the i7 has a 27% fps MAX advantage over the P2. So when it falls from high to low its a much greater fall thus possibly accounting for stuttering, If I understand this whole argument correctly. So the fact the i7 is so powerful is the exact reason that the stuttering exists? (also a 10fps difference in average fps at 1680x1050).

I am just saying that it seems by arguing that the AMD is more smooth you might also be saying that it isn't as powerful thus not as many fluctuations as the intel. I am just saying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barrok

So am I to understand that the reason the AMD is more "smooth" is because it fluctuates less from high fps to low fps? Wouldn't that mean that it is actually LESS powerful of a CPU as an intel because the intels are producing such high FPS that when they fall the same percentage of FPS as an AMD it actually is a larger number thus contributing to some sort of stutter?

For example, if a game is running between 30 and 90 fps on an intel and 25-50 on an AMD, it seems to me that the AMD might be more smooth but also less powerful of a processor? Am I missing something?

---

but what if both cpus get the same average fps. one could be smoother than the other. of course is one system is running at 20 fps constantly while one is running between 40-50 fps the 40-50 fps one would look smoother. but the values aren't that different. they stay at about the same levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barrok

For example, you guys have talked about Crysis Warhead right? With both the I7 and the P2 are head to head, both at 4.0 ghz (roughly) the I7 has a fps range of 19-76 while the P2 is 21-60. Right there the i7 has a 27% fps MAX advantage over the P2. So when it falls from high to low its a much greater fall thus possibly accounting for stuttering, If I understand this whole argument correctly. So the fact the i7 is so powerful is the exact reason that the stuttering exists? (also a 10fps difference in average fps at 1680x1050).

I am just saying that it seems by arguing that the AMD is more smooth you might also be saying that it isn't as powerful thus not as many fluctuations as the intel. I am just saying...

---

the max fps doesn't represent the pure performance tho. the max fps just shows the highest value it got during the test. you can't determine which cpu is better by just seeing the max fps values. you need to see more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

How much subjectivity should we factor into these tests?

---

A better way to put it would be, remove the guess work and try both platforms, look at the data, then decide for yourself. That is what matters.

Pounding people over the head and insisting that the raw numbers are the only thing that matters is silly. It also depends on what you are doing. For example, I have an Intel quad box, for encoding work it gets the job done quite a bit faster than my AMD system. But for gaming, I prefer the AMD box, games "feel" smoother, more enjoyable, which actually surprised me. I was certain it would be the opposite.

Let me ask you rabid Intel supporters posting here, why do you care so much? What if the Phenom platform was actually able to deliver a more enjoyable gaming experience? Would that make you consider it? Are you even open to that possibility? And if you did see graphs that illustrated this, would you actually believe them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

the max fps doesn't represent the pure performance tho. the max fps just shows the highest value it got during the test. you can't determine which cpu is better by just seeing the max fps values. you need to see more.

---

Which is why i included the average fps in which the core i7 gets around 10fps more than the P2.

Are you telling me roofsniper that if a core i7 got an FPS range of 30-60 with an average of 45fps, and a P2 got an FPS range of 30-60 with an average of 45FPS that you would be able to see some sort of stuttering with the intel and some sort of smoothness with the P2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barrok

For example, you guys have talked about Crysis Warhead right? With both the I7 and the P2 are head to head, both at 4.0 ghz (roughly) the I7 has a fps range of 19-76 while the P2 is 21-60. Right there the i7 has a 27% fps MAX advantage over the P2. So when it falls from high to low its a much greater fall thus possibly accounting for stuttering, If I understand this whole argument correctly. So the fact the i7 is so powerful is the exact reason that the stuttering exists? (also a 10fps difference in average fps at 1680x1050).

I am just saying that it seems by arguing that the AMD is more smooth you might also be saying that it isn't as powerful thus not as many fluctuations as the intel. I am just saying...

---

Yes, it has a higher max fps, but it also has a lower minimum fps too.

Typically - at least it has been this way on my past systems - if there is a less powerful system both min and max fps are lower. I've not had a weaker system give higher min but lower max fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barrok

Which is why i included the average fps in which the core i7 gets around 10fps more than the P2.

Are you telling me roofsniper that if a core i7 got an FPS range of 30-60 with an average of 45fps, and a P2 got an FPS range of 30-60 with an average of 45FPS that you would be able to see some sort of stuttering with the intel and some sort of smoothness with the P2?

---

it is a possibility but i don't think that i7 has as much of a stuttering problem as core 2 does if it has one at all. if the frames were all produced in the same amount of time it would create the smoothest possible experience because there would be no change in fps. but we know this is not the case. the idea is that if you plot the amount of time it takes for each frame to be produced on a graph then the core 2 graph would be more jagged than a phenom graph. because the phenom graph because the phenom would produce the frames at a more stable rate than the intel one does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

Let me ask you rabid Intel supporters posting here, why do you care so much? What if the Phenom platform was actually able to deliver a more enjoyable gaming experience? Would that make you consider it? Are you even open to that possibility? And if you did see graphs that illustrated this, would you actually believe them?

---

I've been AMD only since I started building, 2001 (AMD T-bird). I patiently waited until Fall 2007 for AMD to reveal it's "Core2 killer". Yeah that went well.

I think 6 out 7 years of my computing experience being pure AMD demonstrates that I'm not a blinded Intel fan, simply a very disappointed AMD fan (and basically have been since summer 2006).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

A better way to put it would be, remove the guess work and try both platforms, look at the data, then decide for yourself. That is what matters.

Pounding people over the head and insisting that the raw numbers are the only thing that matters is silly. It also depends on what you are doing. For example, I have an Intel quad box, for encoding work it gets the job done quite a bit faster than my AMD system. But for gaming, I prefer the AMD box, games "feel" smoother, more enjoyable, which actually surprised me. I was certain it would be the opposite.

Let me ask you rabid Intel supporters posting here, why do you care so much? What if the Phenom platform was actually able to deliver a more enjoyable gaming experience? Would that make you consider it? Are you even open to that possibility? And if you did see graphs that illustrated this, would you actually believe them?

---

I think the subjectivity may lie in the software (games); which brings us to square one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

I've been AMD only since I started building, 2001 (AMD T-bird). I patiently waited until Fall 2007 for AMD to reveal it's "Core2 killer". Yeah that went well.

I think 6 out 7 years of my computing experience being pure AMD demonstrates that I'm not a blinded Intel fan, simply a very disappointed AMD fan (and basically have been since summer 2006).

---

if you are disappointed in phenom II then i really don't know what to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

if you are disappointed in phenom II then i really don't know what to say.

---

Now now, I didn't say that. I said I was disappointed in 2007 (Phenom I). Who knows what this year will bring :D

(and in particular what this study could reveal)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

I think 6 out 7 years of my computing experience being pure AMD demonstrates that I'm not a blinded Intel fan, simply a very disappointed AMD fan (and basically have been since summer 2006).

---

I know how you feel. I built my Intel Quad and felt pissed off at AMD every second I was assembling it. But I ended up building a Phenom box out of curiosity mostly. What I didn't expect is using the identical video card, I preferred gaming on the AMD. Keep in mind I only have an overclocked Q6600, but the AMD chip is supposed to be a complete turd in gaming, if you only go by the benchmarks.

I would be curious to hear from someone that has both a Phenom 2 and an i7 that plays some of the latest games. If the i7 gives the nice, smooth gaming as the Phenom I would probably use the i7 as my next build, considering in some areas it pummels the AMD chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

I know how you feel. I built my Intel Quad and felt pissed off at AMD every second I was assembling it. But I ended up building a Phenom box out of curiosity mostly. What I didn't expect is using the identical video card, I preferred gaming on the AMD. Keep in mind I only have an overclocked Q6600, but the AMD chip is supposed to be a complete turd in gaming, if you only go by the benchmarks.

I would be curious to hear from someone that has both a Phenom 2 and an i7 that plays some of the latest games. If the i7 gives the nice, smooth gaming as the Phenom I would probably use the i7 as my next build, considering in some areas it pummels the AMD chip.

---

What were your respective overclocks on the Phenom1 and the Q6600?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

What were your respective overclocks on the Phenom1 and the Q6600?

---

his phenom is in his sig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

What were your respective overclocks on the Phenom1 and the Q6600?

---

q6600@~3.3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

I've been AMD only since I started building, 2001 (AMD T-bird). I patiently waited until Fall 2007 for AMD to reveal it's "Core2 killer". Yeah that went well.

I think 6 out 7 years of my computing experience being pure AMD demonstrates that I'm not a blinded Intel fan, simply a very disappointed AMD fan (and basically have been since summer 2006).

---

Same here. Phenom left a real bad taste in the mouths of many of AMD's fans, myself included. The performance lacking is one thing, but all the hoopla that led up to the eventual fiasco really poured salt into the wound. It backed many of us into a corner, and the chip became accessible only to the real loyal fans and those not in the know. Phenom II has put AMD back on the map, and I would have purchased such a system if it came two years earlier, but that just didn't happen.

Anyways, I'm an AMD fan simply out of being a fan for the smaller company, so not necessarily an AMD fan, if that makes any sense. :p:

Maybe AMD should market smoothness on their next line of chips. Give it a name and brand it as some kind of technology. "Get the most out of your games with SmoothFrag technology!" Dun, dun, dunnnnn.

I am in the same boat. I was a bigtime AMD Fan, in fact I purchased a fair amount of their stock a few years ago. Then the stock collapsed, Core2Duo/quad was too good to pass up and now with i7 leading the pack I couldn't go from a q6600 to a p2, even though the p2 was probably better. Felt more like a side step than a step forward :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YukonTrooper

Same here. Phenom left a real bad taste in the mouths of many of AMD's fans, myself included.

---

same... to add insult to injury for me was the 9600be I got was a defective chip too, very frustrating. That's why I got the q6600. Now I'm itching to go back since while this q6600 works it sometimes has been a little grumpy with me, don't know why. Plus, it is probably one of the worst clocking q6600 chips out there :lol2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YukonTrooper

Same here. Phenom left a real bad taste in the mouths of many of AMD's fans, myself included. The performance lacking is one thing, but all the hoopla that led up to the eventual fiasco really poured salt into the wound. It backed many of us into a corner, and the chip became accessible only to the real loyal fans and those not in the know. Phenom II has put AMD back on the map, and I would have purchased such a system if it came two years earlier, but that just didn't happen.

Anyways, I'm an AMD fan simply out of being a fan for the smaller company, so not necessarily an AMD fan, if that makes any sense. :p:

Maybe AMD should market smoothness on their next line of chips. Give it a name and brand it as some kind of technology. "Get the most out of your games with SmoothFrag technology!" Dun, dun, dunnnnn.

---

I'm upgrading from my good old S939 3800+ X2 OCed to 2.5GHz for about 4 years I think on an Abit KN8-SLi. This was the first computer I ever built and it made me an AMD fan. I ALMOST went i7 this time around, but it just didnt feel right going intel, I felt like I needed to help out AMD, cause if they cave like all businesses seem to be doing in this economy, then I hate to see what kinda prices intel will inflate their chips to. I also like to cheer for the underdog as well. I will have all my parts for my PII build by tomorrow and hopefully have it together next week. I really hope I will not be disappointed.

Now you're really going off topic here - just informing you! :)

I think the whole data collecting should be done on different systems/setups in different games. This way the phenomenon should be more "real life validated". Sure, a lot of issues arise when doing something like that. One could easily claim that one system had privileges but that's how it is anyway. Of course setups with similar specs should also be included but I think this is such a large "issue" that it needs to be shown with several setups and that some of those are obviously "inferior" to others but still performing better (as in smoother).

Anandtech stated that the smoothness was better on PhII in some games, not all, and therefore more than one game should be tested.

Nothing off-topic about preferring a smooth ride in the economy over a jerky computer outfit. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

This is not a thesis. Do you think you could write your thesis on automobiles, I could read it, and find out what the best car out there was? You probably do.

---

Hehe... that was actually a good argument.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

I think the subjectivity may lie in the software (games); which brings us to square one.

---

I am pretty sure this issue about smoothness boils down to software(drivers).
A couple of us have *tried* to bring this into this pointless "namecalling-thread".
Another example from me:
As I wrote in another post I swapped my DFI board with an Asus one, paired with my new X4 940.
It "stuttered" terrible in 3D-benches, but the score was OK (3DM01).
Then I (re)installed the AMD CPU driver (no such sw exist per se for Intel), voila,.. no stuttering.. just smooothness..
And my 3DM01-score (same clock) went down 10%. :shrug:
(No effect on 3DM06-score).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

I am pretty sure this issue about smoothness boils down to software(drivers).
A couple of us have *tried* to bring this into this pointless "namecalling-thread".
Another example from me:
As I wrote in another post I swapped my DFI board with an Asus one, paired with my new X4 940.
It "stuttered" terrible in 3D-benches, but the score was OK (3DM01).
Then I (re)installed the AMD CPU driver (no such sw exist per se for Intel), voila,.. no stuttering.. just smooothness..
And my 3DM01-score (same clock) went down 10%. :shrug:
(No effect on 3DM06-score).

---

When it really boils down to drivers, the whole discussion would be again a non issue (yeah keithlm i said it again).
Cause if it is only caused by software and has nothing to do with the hardware itself, the data that might be produced in this thread is a nice bonus, but won't show anything.
Especial when both test systems are configured probably and have a clean install off the OS and the newst drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

When it really boils down to drivers, the whole discussion would be again a non issue (yeah keithlm i said it again).
Cause if it is only caused by software and has nothing to do with the hardware itself, the data that might be produced in this thread is a nice bonus, but won't show anything.
Especial when both test systems are configured probably and have a clean install off the OS and the newst drivers.

---

Software informs the hardware how the hardware should work, software needs to adapt how the hardware likes to work, if software informs the hardware in a way that isn't effective it will not work good.
A graphics driver packs GPU data before it sends it to the gpu. Sending data to the video card is a high latency operation and if you send many small packets it will be much slower compared to sending one big packet. This is much more important on Core 2 compared to Phenom because the FSB likes long trains of data. Core 2 only have one way where data is sent or read from other hardware too. If the software wasn't sending data in long trains (leaving gaps for other data to travel) using the FSB but instead splits the data in many small packets it would be able to the same amount of data. When the FSB is moving data in different directions it also slows down.
If it also need to move memory the traffic increases.
Mouse data is also sent using the FSB on Core 2.
It could be that Core 2 isn't that exact compared to Phenom because Phenom has more capacity moving data to and from the CPU, I/O data doesn't compete with memory traffic.
When I have done heavy work on Intel this is the problem, the speed is often ok. Things get done as fast or maybe faster compared to Phenom but it is trouble to work with other applications when some applications is working hard and the first that starts to behave strange is the mouse. If I start one application that stresses the CPU only it isn't a problem. Thread switching works ok and no problem with data sent to and from the CPU. But if the traffic to and from the CPU increases the mouse will not move as it used to do.

I think that games uses the DirectX driver to read mouse data (don't think they use WIN32 events or API's, haven't read about it so don't know), it also uses the driver to send data to the GPU. It could be that if one have done this badly for that type of hardware the result is that the game will not work well.

I dont think it has anythng to do with software, if thats the case you saying that AMD just released this cpu and has the drivers and software running like butter but Intel cant get their hardware to run smooth with all the time theyve had?.........Im not buying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YukonTrooper

Maybe AMD should market smoothness on their next line of chips. Give it a name and brand it as some kind of technology. "Get the most out of your games with SmoothFrag technology!" Dun, dun, dunnnnn.

---

I dont think that would work. Intels marketing is far more effective as they have all the facts and figures to backup their claims that they have the top chips on the market right now. You cant really try to counter a big company like Intel by using fictional marketing techniques.

AMD didnt even seem to try and do the same when they had total dominance over Intel back in the Athlon days which is back when i was on the green team for 4-5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YukonTrooper

Maybe AMD should market smoothness on their next line of chips. Give it a name and brand it as some kind of technology. "Get the most out of your games with SmoothFrag technology!" Dun, dun, dunnnnn.

---

It is a message that is too complex to market because average user don't have enough knowledge to understand it. Marketing needs to be simple.

The toppic although useless, is missleading.
Using 1 graphics card, 4870.

Phenom II 940 isn't "smoother" than i7 920. If you define "smoothness" as min framerate, then P2 940 MIN framerate is 3% slower than I7 920 and 5% higher then Q9550. If you look at the average framerates, the P2 940 is 2% slower in average of all titles than the i7 920, and 1% slower than the Q9550.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

I dont think it has anythng to do with software, if thats the case you saying that AMD just released this cpu and has the drivers and software running like butter but Intel cant get their hardware to run smooth with all the time theyve had?.........Im not buying it.

---

You don't have to "buy it". :)

Then again, I'll give you a simple question:

What can a CPU (Intel or AMD) do without a chipset, RAM, "firmware" (BIos) and an operating system (drivers/programs)?

Just like the "smoothness" issue and other subjective experience, I only tell you what I just can see with my own eyes (and have done before).
Certain 3D-apps do not work "smooth" without the AMD specific drivers (even though I never use Q&Q when benching).
Strange.. very strange...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

A graphics driver packs GPU data before it sends it to the gpu. Sending data to the video card is a high latency operation and if you send many small packets it will be much slower compared to sending one big packet. This is much more important on Core 2 compared to Phenom because the FSB likes long trains of data. Core 2 only have one way where data is sent or read from other hardware too. If the software wasn't sending data in long trains (leaving gaps for other data to travel) using the FSB but instead splits the data in many small packets it would be able to the same amount of data. When the FSB is moving data in different directions it also slows down.
If it also need to move memory the traffic increases.
Mouse data is also sent using the FSB on Core 2.

---

I think you forget about that thread already....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

It could be that Core 2 isn't that exact compared to Phenom because Phenom has more capacity moving data to and from the CPU, I/O data doesn't compete with memory traffic.
When I have done heavy work on Intel this is the problem, the speed is often ok. Things get done as fast or maybe faster compared to Phenom but it is trouble to work with other applications when some applications is working hard and the first that starts to behave strange is the mouse. If I start one application that stresses the CPU only it isn't a problem. Thread switching works ok and no problem with data sent to and from the CPU. But if the traffic to and from the CPU increases the mouse will not move as it used to do.

---

There are hardly any desktop apps that can saturate the FSB fully with data, its another topic for high bandwidth server oriented tasks, but thats not what games do. Jack already showed you that theres next to no difference between a FSB of 200mhz and 333mhz and HT/IMC on P1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

I think that games uses the DirectX driver to read mouse data (don't think they use WIN32 events or API's, haven't read about it so don't know), it also uses the driver to send data to the GPU. It could be that if one have done this badly for that type of hardware the result is that the game will not work well.

---

Uhm.. no, the mouse dont uses direc x as input api, since xp they use the usb stack for HIDclass devices (or the bluetooth stack if its a wireless mouse) and therefor they use the HID.dll as api,
for none HIDclass devices (PS/2) they us a extra drivers.

Direct X or better what you mean, DirectInput, is for Joysticks and ForceFeedback controllers.

I think you where joking about that, cause it took me 3min to find what api/driver is used for mouse input and im not a programmer....:eh:

Don't bother replying to the troll man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

I think you forget about that thread already....

---

What did you learn from that thread? If you did try to learn something then you would understand, I did learn a couple of things from that thread (now I know more) and that information was from those who criticized me, I was getting information from you. Then when drawing conclusions from that information you will not recognize it. :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Phenom II 940 isn't "smoother" than i7 920. If you define "smoothness" as min framerate, then P2 940 MIN framerate is 3% slower than I7 920 and 5% higher then Q9550. If you look at the average framerates, the P2 940 is 2% slower in average of all titles than the i7 920, and 1% slower than the Q9550.

---

There we go, no testing required....gOJDO says it's all imaginary. :rolleyes:

Like he says, smoothness = min fps...so it simply can't be smoother :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

What did you learn from that thread? If you did try to learn something then you would understand, I did learn a couple of things from that thread (now I know more) and that information was from those who criticized me, I was getting information from you. Then when drawing conclusions from that information you will not recognize it. :clap:

---

Yes you got planty of information, but you still say the same thing over and over again, despite all the information that was given to you and disproved your arguments.

Btw. where the video you promised us back in december. :)

Anyway i think i'll follow the advice of BenchZowner. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Yes you got planty of information, but you still say the same thing over and over again, despite all the information that was given to you and disproved your arguments.

---

?
What am I saying? What did you learn? Do you understand that the CPU and GPU runs asynchronously? And if you do, what does that mean, what type of data can be unreliable because of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KELL5

There we go, no testing required....gOJDO says it's all imaginary. :rolleyes:

Like he says, smoothness = min fps...so it simply can't be smoother :rolleyes:

---

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or trolling or a mix or what.

Heres an idea, instead of the constant question asking, disbelief and speculation here in the AMD forums why dont you guys go right to the source, email the guy who wrote the article......ask him about drivers, software, firmware, hardware,.......hes the one that said it.....we the ones that experience it. Bottom line is whatever the reason is, it is smoother. If you dont want to believe it many of us dont really care, in addition the real question is not what makes AMD systems smoother but whats causing the problem with Intel........it seems like its a dirty little secret, a secret that people with both Intel and AMD realize is a horrible truth slowly seeping out as more people try out the Phenom 2. Die hard Intel users will continue to point fingers, deny and put the focus here so you dont have to admit theres a problem when truthfully you should be looking within to figure out what your problem is.

Its like having 2 cars, one runs great and the other backfires constantly when you drive down the road.......instead of repairing the car that backfires you bring the otherone to the dealer to figure why its running great.......this is what you are doing here.

You: do you have any tests to figure why this car runs great?

Dealer: what do you mean?

You: well this car runs excellent but my other car backfires so I want to know why?

Dealer:Well why dont you bring the other car in so we can check it?

You: we can mess with the sparkplugs or maybe the muffler it has to be something making this car smoother.

Dealer: its easier to fix the problem on the actual car than to try to replicate it with a car that runs properly .....why dont you bring it in?

You: what about putting water or sugar in the gas tank will that cause a backfire we can try that I brought some with me?

Dealer: maybe but we cant be sure untill we check the actual car.

You:Maybe if we put a banana in the tailpipe it will force the car to backfire?

Dealer::rolleyes:.......neeexxxt

Oh god... here we go with the car comparison again and... it's not the tranny this time. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or trolling or a mix or what.

---

sarcasm. No need to argue with someone who has no clue. The statement he posted would suggest he doesn't know what he's talking about. Equating smoothness to min fps says it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titan7171

Its like having 2 cars, one runs great and the other backfires constantly when you drive down the road.......instead of repairing the car that backfires you bring the otherone to the dealer to figure why its running great.......this is what you are doing here.

You: do you have any tests to figure why this car runs great?

Dealer: what do you mean?

You: well this car runs excellent but my other car backfires so I want to know why?

Dealer:Well why dont you bring the other car in so we can check it?

You: we can mess with the sparkplugs or maybe the muffler it has to be something making this car smoother.

Dealer: its easier to fix the problem on the actual car than to try to replicate it with a car that runs properly .....why dont you bring it in?

You: what about putting water or sugar in the gas tank will that cause a backfire?

Dealer: maybe but we cant be sure untill we check the actual car.

You:Maybe if we put a banana in the tailpipe it will force the car to backfire?

Dealer::rolleyes:.......neeexxxt

---

Very well put. This analogy sums up this thread perfectly....spot on :)

If the pc's themselves were comparing each other there would be no arguments. The fact users need to post on this forum brings arguments into existence. Even if you could prove that intel pc's outperform amd pc's in every single way imaginable, except for say one single benchmark where amd pc's score higher.....the majority of intel users will disregard this and make up a multitude of excuses for amd's favourable results. It's asif in no way possible could any amd tech ever be better, more efficient or faster than any intel tech. Even if an outside source "anand" agree with these findings the intel users will always cry foul. That's the human element I guess. :(

I love my Phenom II.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throwed

I love my Phenom II.:D

---

I would say that statement sums up this, the previous,, and the n'th next spinof thread about "AMD is smoother.. and Everyone questioning this "fact" are Intel-trolls"..
Yes.. pretty much.

And yes.. I think my AMD-rigs are "smooth", and any "stuttering", "lags"..etc.. I contribute to a certain setup of hw/sw (ATI/Nvidia gpu, Intel/nForce/ATI chipset.. AMD/Intel cpu).
To discuss this to find an explanation is probably of no interest it seems.
Better just conclude it is linked to the brand on the HS of the CPU .

I guess this post makes me by default an Intel-man.. Intel-troll.. from "the dark side"..etc...etc.. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KELL5

sarcasm. No need to argue with someone who has no clue. The statement he posted would suggest he doesn't know what he's talking about. Equating smoothness to min fps says it all.

---

Ok.... no harm meant, I wasn't fully awake. Hope my comment didn't come across badly or anything.

Looking at at it again, how did I miss the :rolleyes:

:hitself:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KELL5

There we go, no testing required....

---

Anand did the testing and we got the numbers. If you have finished primary school you should know how to add, multiply and divide numbers.

Quote:

---

gOJDO says it's all imaginary. :rolleyes:

---

Are you on something or what?

Quote:

---

Like he says, smoothness = min fps...so it simply can't be smoother :rolleyes:

---

Read the first post. The op has defined "higher min fps" as smoother.

yeah that's all it comes down to...minimum FPS. Totally, that's it encapsulated.

If you haven't noticed, I wrote "smooth" in quotation marks. Guess why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Read the first post. The op has defined "higher min fps" as smoother.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

If you haven't noticed, I wrote "smooth" in quotation marks. Guess why?

---

OH OH OH. Let me answer that one.. it's just too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

You used quotes because you knew that you left out half of the OP's original statement and were only commenting on half of it; more specifically the weak half.

Let us review the OP's post. He said:

Quote:

---

with more framerate stability and higher minimum framerates

---

But I'm sure you and the the other people that are obviously NOT posting in this thread to constructively participate in the conversation already knew that minor fact.

Some of us have resigned ourselves to the fact that we will get people like "you" posting that kind of stuff and there is nothing that can be done about it. But I guess that's okay. It gives us something to laugh about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

The toppic although useless, is missleading.
Using 1 graphics card, 4870.

Phenom II 940 isn't "smoother" than i7 920. If you define "smoothness" as min framerate, then P2 940 MIN framerate is 3% slower than I7 920 and 5% higher then Q9550. If you look at the average framerates, the P2 940 is 2% slower in average of all titles than the i7 920, and 1% slower than the Q9550.

---

sigh theres 15 pages about this and you still think that smoothness has to do with average and min framerate? no one is saying this.

and if you guys all believe it is a driver issue then how about you reinstall the OS 3 times and all the drivers and everything and rerun the tests again. that way it would eliminate any of the problems of it being related to drivers. but thats too much of a pita to listen to all the demands of people who have no idea what they are talking about and everytime someone comes up with an idea they shoot it down and blame the smoothness on something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

No, I think there's a certain responsibility from the users as well.

I adapted quite a bit from a few months earlier regarding flaming/trolling. However, Im not innocent, but if things cant stay normal and people crying the same crap post after post without any clue, it's bound to happen :banana::banana::banana::banana: hits the fan for me and obviously other forum members as well. It's almost getting a sport to type A M D before you've some raving phag stabbing in your neck:shakes:

Im not against a healthy discussion, but I ain't tolerating this has to come with stupid remarks as having green glasses, being blind or stuff like in my sig. If it happens once or twice Ill ignore it, but post after post, thread after thread, then people are seriously pushing other members not to respond.

I dont even get wtf threy've to do in AMD threads since it's quite obviously they've no interest in AMD. You wont find me in the Intel section for example, and you might find a very rare post from me in an Intel thread in the news section. Why do I not come there? Because Im not interested, plain and simple. If there's a question from me regarding Intel, I just ask without any stupid comments around that. It's a shame it seems a lot of other people lack this ability, especially since that ability takes no Einstein to work out:rolleyes:

---

What part of this exactly is hard to understand? Why dont mentioned people just leave. It's been proven post after post, by them selves, they're for 99% of the time contributing zero relevance to AMD threads. Only because they've pretty much gained that status, their credibility alone is so low it's sooner or later going to happen :banana::banana::banana::banana: hits the fan, whether they make a good or bad post. Why even bother:shrug:

Disclaimer, no trolling intended, Im seriously wondering why they would even bother

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

OH OH OH. ......It gives us something to laugh about.

---

Explain how Phenom II is smoother than Core i7?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Explain how Phenom II is smoother than Core i7?

---

Please explain how is this related to your previous post.

(And since your NEW question is not a topic I would comment about then you'll have to search somewhere else for your answer. I'd suggest that you move to Intel subsection where you find a ton of people that will discuss this with you.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Explain how Phenom II is smoother than Core i7?

---

we dont have to explain it.......ask the guy who did the review on this situation and read this if you missed it.

Quote:

---

Heres an idea, instead of the constant question asking, disbelief and speculation here in the AMD forums why dont you guys go right to the source, email the guy who wrote the article......ask him about drivers, software, firmware, hardware,.......hes the one that said it.....we the ones that experience it. Bottom line is whatever the reason is, it is smoother. If you dont want to believe it many of us dont really care, in addition the real question is not what makes AMD systems smoother but whats causing the problem with Intel........it seems like its a dirty little secret, a secret that people with both Intel and AMD realize is a horrible truth slowly seeping out as more people try out the Phenom 2. Die hard Intel users will continue to point fingers, deny and put the focus here so you dont have to admit theres a problem when truthfully you should be looking within to figure out what your problem is.

Its like having 2 cars, one runs great and the other backfires constantly when you drive down the road.......instead of repairing the car that backfires you bring the otherone to the dealer to figure why its running great.......this is what you are doing here.

You: do you have any tests to figure why this car runs great?

Dealer: what do you mean?

You: well this car runs excellent but my other car backfires so I want to know why?

Dealer:Well why dont you bring the other car in so we can check it?

You: we can mess with the sparkplugs or maybe the muffler it has to be something making this car smoother.

Dealer: its easier to fix the problem on the actual car than to try to replicate it with a car that runs properly .....why dont you bring it in?

You: what about putting water or sugar in the gas tank will that cause a backfire we can try that I brought some with me?

Dealer: maybe but we cant be sure untill we check the actual car.

You:Maybe if we put a banana in the tailpipe it will force the car to backfire?

Dealer:.......neeexxxt

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Anand did the testing and we got the numbers. If you have finished primary school you should know how to add, multiply and divide numbers.

Are you on something or what?

Read the first post. The op has defined "higher min fps" as smoother.

---

reading comprehension ftw

I'll give you a break here because I'm not sure whether english is your second language.


I said smoother gameplay AND higher min fps. The "AND" delineates them as two seperate items, so in actuality I said the exact opposite of what you though I said.

If I had meant that the smoothness was due to the higher min fps, I would have said "smoother gameplay BECAUSE of higher min fps", and not have used AND.



edit: To define...

Smooth = no stutter/hitching, related to max average time between rendered frames

Higher min FPS = less noticable framerate drops, generally happens in same areas regardless whether AMD or Intel



A framerate drop (worse with lower min fps) occurs in certain hard to render scenes but not all the time, while lack of smoothness occurs continuously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fellix_bg

If this is really an decisive advantage, AMD should change to a new slogan, like Smoother choice!

---

sounds like a smoking ad to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fizur2002

sounds like a smoking ad to me.

---

lol, or a fake butter ad!

ok theres no point discussing this anymore. everything has been said and all that will happen now is people will just argue. either we need to test this or theres nothing else to say.