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

[Zucker2k]

Dont kid yourself, or me by that nonsense, most of you come in here to flame anything remotely considered competition. Thats ok I dont mind some good hearted debate. Just dont come in here with that holier than thou attitude and we could all have some meaningful conversation. Otherwise its just internet/forum fodder.

Or it is just perceived and not real? Or maybe you have a complex about your hardware? Saying PH II is not better than a C2Q is not the same as saying PH II is a "LOSER" processor like some have said. AT's conclusion in not new in this forum; why can't we just discuss hardware without the name-calling and suspicions of being put down?

well good for you but the thread is not about why you are going to buy i7. the thread is about smoothness.

You must be kidding me; you posed a question and I answered and look at your retort? With attitude like that, you'd always be at loggerheads with me because irrationality is not my forte.

[Blacklash]

"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."

That last part confuses me. I don't consider faster averages a best possible scenario if option B is better mins and smoother game play. I'd rather a 32 FPS min and a 50FPS average than a 23FPS min and a 60FPS average. Again if that lower average is much smoother that is a fairly big deal to me.

[Final8ty]

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

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...5&postcount=16

Thinking about it & what i have been reading on that forum with users who have switched from ATI to NV & said that NV card ran smoother seem to be on Intel mobos.

[Zucker2k]

"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."

That last part confuses me. I don't consider faster averages a best possible scenario if option B is better mins and smoother game play. I'd rather a 32 FPS min and a 50FPS average than a 23FPS min and a 60FPS average. Again if that lower average is much smoother that is a fairly big deal to me.

But option A was against the Q9550?

[Raiderman]

Or it is just perceived and not real? Or maybe you have a complex about your hardware? Saying PH II is not better than a C2Q is not the same as saying PH II is a "LOSER" processor like some have said. AT's conclusion in not new in this forum; why can't we just discuss hardware without the name-calling and suspicions of being put down?

Exactly, I never mentioned anyones names, I like to have good hardware debates and discussions. My statement was not pointed directly at you, but at other people coming in, and not being as "polite" as they should be. The suspicions are not that at all, they are fact, as you might have been able to read in the other "smoothness" threads that are closed. We get bombarded with name calling, which gets returned, hence the closure of the thread.

[.Tret]

You = trolling

Stuttering IS NOT min fps, stuttering is stuttering... you can have higher min fps and still have stutter/hitch.

We DID NOT say, "PII IS TEH BESTEST HURR DURR". I own a Q6600, E7200, and E8400, and they are sitting in my closet for a reason... I tested both intel and AMD rigs personally, and found the exact same thing that Anand did- that intel rigs stutter in certain games, while AMD rigs typically do not.


Folks seem to love to put spin on this to try and distract everyone from the real issue being discussed. Let me break this entire argument down real simple like:


Smoother supporters: I've used AMD and intel systems, and the AMD systems seem to run some games more smoothly than the intel systems do

Opponents: You are all insane morons that is impossible GRAPHS CHARTS GRAPHS CHARTS!!!! CHARTS!!!

Smoother supporters: This doesn't have to do with framerate numbers, it has to do with framerate stability...

Opponents: LIES!!! BS!!!

Anandtech: In our test we used AMD and intel systems, and the AMD systems seem to run some games more smoothly than the intel systems do.

Smoother supporters: See, we told you, intel stutters in some games.

Opponents: Oh wait, ummmm..... GRAPHS!!! CHARTS!!!

Smoother supporters: Wait, didn't we already say this doesn't have to do with who has the highest FPS? Could you please direct us to the "stuttering" chart, because we must have missed it...

You need to calm yourself down. The article mentioned nothing about frame rate stablility in regards to stuttering; Only min frame rates in that regards.

Seriously; This is just a cpu. There is no need to turn this into a religion like some OS worshipers do.

edit:Just get whatever is best for your price, don't try justification.

[Raiderman]

You need to calm yourself down. The article mentioned nothing about frame rate stablility in regards to stuttering; Only min frame rates in that regards.

Seriously; This is just a cpu. There is no need to turn this into a religion like some OS worshipers do.

lol.....vista sucks......no XP sucks.....no MacOs sucks......

[Sparky]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


Sometimes you guys amaze me even though I expect it.

[iandh]

You need to calm yourself down. The article mentioned nothing about frame rate stablility in regards to stuttering; Only min frame rates in that regards.

I'm quite calm, enjoying myself actually.


You must have read a different article than I did:

During testing, the Intel systems would generate minimum frame rates at this resolutions about 23~24fps on a couple of runs and then jump to their current results on the others. We noticed this in game play also; the Intel systems would hitch and pause at times. We would shutdown the game, clear the prefetch folder, and reboot. The game would operate fine in the next series of testing although we still had stuttering in intensive ground scenes at times. We tried new images, different CPUs, memory changes, and the Sapphire HD 4870 cards with the same results. The Phenom II 940 had extremely stable frame rates in each test and action was very fluid during game play.

Seriously; This is just a cpu. There is no need to turn this into a religion like some OS worshipers do.

So since I own more Intel hardware than AMD does that mean I am something like a priest that is also a closet satanist?

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


Sometimes you guys amaze me even though I expect it.

The thread was going just fine until the intel troops caught a whiff... this Anand article is a completely unbiased and seperate source that confirms the experiences of forum users who at first were just trying to honestly share their experiences and then were crucified for doing so. Now that this subject is slowly growing in credibility, it seems that nobody knows what direction to point their argument in.

[Glow9]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


Sometimes you guys amaze me even though I expect it.

Oh come on you know a threads gone to if it can't make it past page to so its fun to get your shots in at the idiotic fanbois. It's like a wrestling match that's perfectly even until one of e'm gets a chair and the refs have long since given up.

[BenchZowner]

The charts are sorted by Average Frame Rates, not the min/max values listed in the text field. I will have to separate the values into individual charts in the SLI article or do something with Excel. The NB speed was set to 2486MHz, the fastest I could run it in Vista 64 and keep that CPU speed.

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...

The conclusion of the Anand article was, as far as stuttering (min fps) is concerned, The PII 940 and the q9550 are about equal with the PII being ahead in some games; but in the end the i7 is the best overall.

Yeap, exactly that.

Out of that conclusion you came away with PII IS TEH BESTEST HURR DURR.

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

Is that all you got out of all those quotes?? I guess now this reviewer who was so competent all these years praising Intel is now incompetent and didnt observe the right results in the tests......how convenient.

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.

where did this come from? i think we have been comparing phenom II with core 2. i7 has nothing to do with this. have you even read a post yet? and for your info this is me when i read posts like yours:

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

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

It's saying

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

maybe you haven't read any posts or even the article. if you actually read the article theres a q9550, a i7 920 and a phenom II 940. in the article they are comparing the cpus in a xfire test. thats where i7 steps in. then if you also read the article they say the 940 is smoother than the q9550 but that i7 is the best of them all. so just because i7 is in the title doesn't mean that phenom II is smoother than it. i hope i saved you the time of reading the article since obviously you haven't yet.

^

has anyone actually read this thread yet? because it seems that everyone that posts has no idea what they are talking about.

Do you ?

You = trolling

Stuttering IS NOT min fps, stuttering is stuttering... you can have higher min fps and still have stutter/hitch.

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

Anandtech: In our test we used AMD and intel systems, and the AMD systems seem to run some games more smoothly than the intel systems do.

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

The Phenom II is smoother in the tested games than the Core 2 Quad, but the Core i7 is as smooth as the Phenom II is [ except in C.O.H. ] ( if not smoother )

[xsbb]

my Via processor is "smoother" I can "feel it"


Hahah you guys need to calm down. Thank you for your opinions and perspectives on the matter. Just don't start a holy war when someone disagrees.

[BenchZowner]

my Via processor is "smoother" I can "feel it"

Girls usually tell me that... oh Bill your "processor" is so smooooth.... I can feel it

LOL

10 mins to thread lock.

[roofsniper]

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

ok just to let you know does the thread title say what the phenom II is smoother than? all it is saying is that the three were compared and that the phenom II was smoother. not necessarily smoothest tho. i think its common sense when even the article says that the phenom II is smoother than core 2 and that i7 is smoother than all 3. maybe you missed that part and missed it when i said it multiple times. the thread title is a little misleading but iandh only said that his phenom II is smoother than his intel systems. and last time i checked he doesn't have an i7. im getting tired of having to read posts to people who are not capable of reading themselves.

[roofsniper]

my Via processor is "smoother" I can "feel it"


Hahah you guys need to calm down. Thank you for your opinions and perspectives on the matter. Just don't start a holy war when someone disagrees.

if someone is going to disagree then they need to have some kind of proof. otherwise it is something known as trolling.

[iandh]

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

I would say it's the other way around. You can't just make crap up that Anand supposedly said and act as if that was what they meant. Could you point out to me where they said the i7 didn't stutter, because afaik they never did. As far as what I quoted in my OP, I was going off of this:

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.

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.

if someone is going to disagree then they need to have some kind of proof. otherwise it is something known as trolling.

That is far too much to expect evidently.

I was originally under the impression we were given the burden of proof as far as showing whether "smoother" was possible in some cases... now that it seems we have provided some, the opponents are now arguing that umm, wait...

TBH I'm not sure what they are arguing anymore... the point has been well established here, on other forums, and now in this article that intel systems can stutter in some cases that AMD systems do not- so now the opposition has just decayed into nitpicking things such as thread titles to try and draw attention away from elephant in the room.

[ewitte]

Did I miss something? Last I checked the newer games needed a strong video card and if ANY system stutters today your doing something wrong. Hmm maybe if its a Celeron.

[Sparky]

Did I miss something? Last I checked the newer games needed a strong video card and if ANY system stutters today your doing something wrong. Hmm maybe if its a Celeron.

Well celerons have always sucked

[roofsniper]

Did I miss something? Last I checked the newer games needed a strong video card and if ANY system stutters today your doing something wrong. Hmm maybe if its a Celeron.

its been an ongoing thing. imo the reason why amd systems might look smoother is because of the high HT bandwidth and the imc. core 2 cpus don't have this which could be a reason why its frame rates aren't as stable.

[TL1000S]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...5&postcount=16

Thinking about it & what i have been reading on that forum with users who have switched from ATI to NV & said that NV card ran smoother seem to be on Intel mobos.

Good point.

That's why I *tried* to get some sensible discussion about sw/drivers vs. hw/chipset/"Platform" regarding "smoothness" earlier (AMD "CPU driver" vs. non-excisting Intel "CPU driver").

No CPU/GPU/hw is better than the sw running with it.

[iandh]

Good point.

That's why I *tried* to get some sensible discussion about sw/drivers vs. hw/chipset/"Platform" regarding "smoothness" earlier (AMD "CPU driver" vs. non-excisting Intel "CPU driver").

No CPU/GPU/hw is better than the sw running with it.

I agree completely. In fact, it would be interesting to see some double-blind testing with AMD/intel/nvidia/ATI all mixed up together randomly and see what came of it.

I can say for absolute sure that my GTX 260 plays nicer with my Q6600 rig and my 4870 plays nicer with my PII rig, and it IS NOT my imagination.

[Zucker2k]

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

[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.

[MrMojoZ]

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

Yes we know everthing AMD is bad. We are sorry for discussing AMD products without Team Bottom Dweller Intel Fan's persmission. Won't happen again, you can go now.

[roofsniper]

Good point.

That's why I *tried* to get some sensible discussion about sw/drivers vs. hw/chipset/"Platform" regarding "smoothness" earlier (AMD "CPU driver" vs. non-excisting Intel "CPU driver").

No CPU/GPU/hw is better than the sw running with it.

yea of course the platform has a good deal to do with everything. but intel cpus can't run on amd platforms and the majority of amd users use an amd chipset.