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

[iandh]

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

all other numbers/configs PII wins

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

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


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

[Mav451]

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


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

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

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

[Zucker2k]

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

all other numbers/configs PII wins

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

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

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

[tiro_uspsss]

Ok let's see the veracity of your statement:

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

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

Anand:


1680x1050 - 2x AA


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

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

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

u got that? good:

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

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

[roofsniper]

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

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

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

[roofsniper]

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

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

u got that? good:

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

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

hmmmmm nice post but sorry it won't work.

[Zucker2k]

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

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

u got that? good:

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

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

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

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

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

[iandh]

well done on the edit Captain Quick Fingers

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

u got that? good:

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

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

[tiro_uspsss]

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

no probs! anytime!

hmmmmm nice post but sorry it won't work.

u lost me there

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

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

[informal]

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

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

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

[tiro_uspsss]

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

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

[iandh]

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

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

[roofsniper]

u lost me there

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

[tiro_uspsss]

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

why u devious, sadistic lil *bleeeep*

[tiro_uspsss]

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

ahhh hehe gotcha

[iandh]

ahhh hehe gotcha

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

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

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

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

[roofsniper]

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

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

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.

[tiro_uspsss]

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

thats cause of ppl like....

Dude, you're late to this party;

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

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

that made sense

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

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

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

the reviewer made the observation without factoring in min fps:

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

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

then you're an idiot.

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

[Zucker2k]

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

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

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

1fps = smoothness.

Somebody sig that.

[tiro_uspsss]

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

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

*psst* this is a rational, logical question

[informal]

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

*psst* this is a rational, logical question

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

[roofsniper]

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

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

[Zucker2k]

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

*psst* this is a rational, logical question

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

[tiro_uspsss]

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

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

i'm sorry, my eyes must be screwing up

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

[Brother Esau]

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

all other numbers/configs PII wins

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

O;h My Goodness my Guiness