So there is only 1% between the ph2 965 and the ph2 955? And why start twittering on about pcie and mobo prices? Its like you are selling ph2 or something?Originally Posted by gosh
So there is only 1% between the ph2 965 and the ph2 955? And why start twittering on about pcie and mobo prices? Its like you are selling ph2 or something?
Don't take what gosh says seriously.
Ah that review again... While the final graph does not say to much it is clear that i5-750 is better then Pii-965 for home use.
Last edited by kl0012; 09-15-2009 at 10:46 PM.
No! you picked graphs where i5-750 won. There are other graphs...Ah that review again... While the final graph don't say to much it is clear tha i5-750 is better then Pii-965 for home use.
Also even if the test is much better compared to other tests it doesn't test multitasking or low fps in gaming. Both strong areas for phenom
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/in...7-lga1156.html
Last edited by gosh; 09-15-2009 at 10:47 PM.
I tought I've made it clear - home use!
Not much people will use Maya, Lightwave or SpecJVM at homeAnd those who will probably will go with i7.
Last edited by kl0012; 09-15-2009 at 10:57 PM.
well, check this page: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=3I tought I've made it clear - home use!
Not much people will use Maya, Lightwave or SpecJVM at home
What should I check? I dont use Lightwave at home (especially with Cinema 4D, Photoshop and Word/Exel running at background).
There are more realistic multitasking scenarios:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...d-cpu-review/6
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.ph...=19979&page=10
And about the games - I have no idea why they have a problem with GTX275.
Don't let yourself sucked into a circle of pointless argumentation with gosh, he never acknowledges anything.
He does that every time, and when it look like that he gets "pawned" he either is switching subject or plays dumb.
If you don't want to know how the hardware works then you shouldn't read my posts
Gosh, most, if not everyone here knows how the hardware works (although there are differences in the technical level of understanding). What you fail to acknowledge is the truth because of your obvious bias.
Since you love quoting Anand...
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3634Final Words
I'll start this conclusion with what AMD must do in response to Lynnfield. The Core i5 750 is a great processor at $196, in fact, it's the best quad-core CPU you can buy at that price today. In nearly every case it's faster than AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE, despite the AMD processor costing almost another $50.
Here is another example,
Benchmarks:
Power Consumption:
No bias here, I chose every result from Anand's Athlon II X4 review. You keep implying that i5 750 = PII 955 BE when that is CLEARLY not the case.
May I remind you again,
Not to mention, both the PII and i7s have similar overclocks on conventional cooling, with the slight advantage to i7 based on average overclocks seen on reviews and here on Xtremesystems. Most enthusiasts will overclock their system, which will further widen the gap between i7/i5 and PII.Core i5 750 is a great processor at $196, in fact, it's the best quad-core CPU you can buy at that price today. In nearly every case it's faster than AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE
But of course, you will ignore what I just posted, which is fine really since I don't care but I refuse to let your bias misinform people.
Last edited by Clairvoyant129; 09-16-2009 at 08:52 AM.
I now see what you mean, Does he even take himself seriously lol.Don't take what gosh says seriously.
I will ignore your post if you don't know how to explain the results in graphs. That is the hard part
Or to make it easier. Explain the difference here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=2
Last edited by gosh; 09-16-2009 at 10:09 AM.
Um what difference?I will ignore your post if you don't know how to explain the results in graphs. That is the hard part
Or to make it easier. Explain the difference here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=2
What is there to epxlain?
Cinebench just favours Ci7 more then cinema 4D, tought as you might noticed C4D gains quite a bit form HT, thats why simmilar clocke 920 wins against 750...
Again, you try to generate an issue where no issue is....
Just started a living review of the Gigabyte P55-UD6 here
The Intel Core i7 860 Review
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641
Thanks for link to i7-860 review!
Onethreehill - Thanks for the link to the Anandtech review of the i7-860 Lynnfield!
It's well done with numerous tests, clearly understandable results and bang-on conclusions.
I'll be starting my own build with an i7-860 from MicroCenter at the introductory bargain price as soon as my preferred Mushkin DRAM becomes available.
Here's a test done by tomshardware to judge Lynnfield's onoard PCI-E performance ------> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ield,2379.html
IMO the test is awful and they used a 790GX when there is a 790FX with two 16x slots and why not OC the processors?. @2.8Ghz the processors are certainly the bottleneck.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
it sounds like you are denying how hardware works more than anything else and your excuse is that you know something about the architecture. well maybe you might want to read up on AMD's less than stellar branch prediction and floating point/SIMD performance with mixed latencies before you post.
"sounds" ?
Try using core 2 and making small test applications where you time it. you will get VERY good results, better than a fast i7 in most small tests. Then test a more realistic scenario which is very hard to do just writing a small testapp. The result will be completely diffrent.
This isn't as easy as just seeing some graphs where the review may have selected tests to get desired results.
What? How did you come up with that conclusion? Do you have any tests to back up your conclusion? Sources? Oh and AMDZone.com doesn't count.
Anyway, in the end we can conclude that PII needs at least 800MHz-1GHz advantage in clock speed to keep up with Core i5/Core i7.
Make that 2Ghz
Back in reality,on average the Bloomfield is some 20-25% faster per clock than Deneb. You can make the Mhz numbers for "needed" Deneb from Bloomfied's clocks. The thing is that Bloomfield has a higher than that (average) lead in some workloads while in other it's not so much faster or is equal or even slower in few. So what you get in the end is about 20-25%,which is a healthy lead,a similar lead over Penryn which is some 5% faster than Deneb,which in turn coincides with a rough 20% lead every new intel design brought over previous one since P4 was sent to retirement(P4 not counted as "previous").
I have runed many tests myself and you can ask any developer to try. Or why not study some programming and do it your self
OMG ^^...
Is this guy serious?
Thats right, that is why there are over 30 graphs. So you CAN get a firm understanding of each chip's benefits and pitfalls and see whether certain benchmarks favor what you (the end user) is going to be using their system for.
Benchmark apps are for a reason...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks