Athlon II Quad, Phenom II Dual, or Phenom II Tri?

[StrangleHold]

The 870 chipset is not a comparison to P55, it's a stripped down version of an 890GX, this board-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157188

Sata 6gb and USB3 means nothing. Theres nothing that takes advantage the usb3 right now and sata 3gb is not bottlenecked at all. Once again, no SLI support for the AMD.

1.The only difference between the two is the 890GX has onboard video. The performance is the same.

2. The 780/785/790GX/880 and 890GX are all 770/870 chips with onboard video. Dont really know how Asrock is getting by splitting the PCIe lanes on the 870 (against AMD rules) only suppost to happen with the 790GX/890GX.

3.The 790X and to be released 890X are 790FX/890FX chips with one block of PCIe lanes disabled.

4. I could have swore you in another thread were arguing with bomber and me saying any board with SATA 6.0 and USB 3.0 means it was a performance board. Now you say in means nothing. Twisted.

But the I5 eats the 955 up in every aspect.-

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/191?vs=88.

A few seconds is not (eats it up) Unless in drama queen mode.

Bear in mind the I5 is clocked 400 mhz slower. For a clock for clock comparison, select the Phenom II 920 and have a good laugh. The 760 is 5-24 seconds faster at encoding, 4-15 seconds faster rendering, and 27 seconds faster at compressing a 300mb archive than the Phenom II 920...a direct clock for clock comparison. So if both the 955 and I5 760 were clocked to 4ghz, the I5 would be that much faster also.

You dont need to explain to me about clock speed between Intel and AMD. Save that for the noobs your trying to impress.

Last post I'm making in this thread.

 

[87dtna]

OMG


Than what is an 880g chipset? Let me see.....oh...870 with onboard video? Yeah.

This 880g is the same as that 870 with onboard-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7191&cm_re=asrock_880g-_-13-157-191-_-Product

The 890gx is higher performance than 870/880. If it wasn't, why bother even making the 890gx? As you said, the 890gx is the same as AMD best chipset the 890fx, but with one block of pcie lanes cut.

We were not talking about USB3 and sata6, we were talking about having sata2 and DDR2 on a socket 478 board meaning the board is a ''performance'' board. I'm sure you remember now. I never said anywhere that sata6 and USB3 means performance, as right now neither are useful. Although USB3 will be useful soon, it's much faster than USB2.

Oh, LOL, and if you think a few seconds time isn't eat up, than apparently you don't feel that a Phenom II 955 eats up an Athlon II 450 either because thats the same time difference between them too

Look at that everybody, anybody with a quad core is a moron according to stranglehold. Just a ''few seconds'' difference

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/189?vs=88

So why do you bother unlocking your CPU to a quad? There's only a few seconds difference?

 

[StrangleHold]

I said I was not going to post again, But this is crazy

The 890gx is higher performance than 870/880. If it wasn't, why bother even making the 890gx?

No its not, its the same chip as the 870 with onboard. There is no more PCIe lanes to disable. They use the 870 chip because its cheaper to produce. AMD just lets them split the PCIe lanes on the 790GX and 890GX

As you said, the 890gx is the same as AMD best chipset the 890fx, but with one block of pcie lanes cut.?

I never said that. Dont lie. I said the 790X and 890X is a 790FX and 890FX chip with a block of PCIe lanes disabled. The 790GX and 890GX (Does not have any more lanes to disable) Is based off the 770/870 chip. Just like the 780/785/880

Oh, LOL, and if you think a few seconds time isn't eat up, than apparently you don't feel that a Phenom II 955 eats up an Athlon II 450 either because thats the same time difference between them too

Look at that everybody, anybody with a quad core is a moron according to stranglehold. Just a ''few seconds'' difference

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/189?vs=88

So why do you bother unlocking your CPU to a quad? There's only a few seconds difference?

I never even said that, I think you are really retarted.

 

[87dtna]

No its not, its the same chip as the 870 with onboard. There is no more PCIe lanes to disable. They use the 870 chip because its cheaper to produce. AMD just lets them split the PCIe lanes on the 790GX and 890GX

Than what is the 880g? And whats the difference betweeen the 880g and the 890gx?

I love how you just completely ignore things.

I never said that. Dont lie. I said the 790X and 890X is a 790FX and 890FX chip with a block of PCIe lanes disabled. The 790GX and 890GX (Does not have any more lanes to disable) Is based off the 770/870 chip. Just like the 780/785/880
.

My mistake, you did say 890x and I saw 890gx.

I never even said that, I think you are really retarted.

In a sense, you absolutely did. There's about the same amount of time difference in the benchmarks between the 920 and I5 760 (for a both 2.8ghz clockspeed comparison) as there is between the 955 and Athlon II 450. So there you go genius.

 

[StrangleHold]

Than what is the 880g? And whats the difference betweeen the 880g and the 890gx?

I love how you just completely ignore things.

How many times do I have to explain this.

You have a 770/870 chipset. Add onboard video to it, you have a 780g/880g. Allow them to split the PCIe lanes (8/8) and you have a 790GX/890GX (hence the X for crossfire). They all have the same amount of PCIe lanes. There is no more PCIe lanes to disable The only reason to start with for the GX was to compete with the Nvidia 750a.

Thats why I said AMD could come down on Asrock for splitting them on the 870 named board. Cuts in on sales of the GX and X boards

The 790X and 890X is based off the 790FX and 890FX. Same chip. They disable a block of PCIe lanes.

The 790X and 890X is a step down from the FX models based off the 790/890FX chip. Just has a block of PCIe lanes disabled

The 790GX and 890GX is a step up from the 780g and 880g, all based off the 770/870 chip. They all only have 22 PCIe lanes to start with. No reason is disable any lanes.




Lets make this simple.

Say AMD only makes two chips. The 770/870 and 790FX/890FX.

The 780G/880G and 790GX/890GX both are based off the 770/870 chipset. They only split the 16 lanes to 8/8 on the GX. Only 22 PCIe lanes period.

The 790X/890X is based off the 790FX/890FX with a set of PCIe lanes disabled. Originally had 38 lanes.

 

[BurningSkyline]

I wouldn't say that NOTHING takes advantage of USB 3.0
http://******/125453/intensitypro

 

[87dtna]

How many times do I have to explain this.

You have a 770/870 chipset. Add onboard video to it, you have a 780g/880g. Allow them to split the PCIe lanes (8/8) and you have a 790GX/890GX (hence the X for crossfire). They all have the same amount of PCIe lanes. There is no more PCIe lanes to disable The only reason to start with for the GX was to compete with the Nvidia 750a.

Thats why I said AMD could come down on Asrock for splitting them on the 870 named board. Cuts in on sales of the GX and X boards

The 790X and 890X is based off the 790FX and 890FX. Same chip. They disable a block of PCIe lanes.

The 790X and 890X is a step down from the FX models based off the 790/890FX chip. Just has a block of PCIe lanes disabled

The 790GX and 890GX is a step up from the 780g and 880g, all based off the 770/870 chip. They all only have 22 PCIe lanes to start with. No reason is disable any lanes.

Alright, I always thought that an 790GX was a cut 790FX but with onboard video. And an 790x was the same thing as an 790gx but without video.
Why would they not call it the 780GX then? Very stupid. Perhaps they want to trick people into thinking the way I was thinking it worked because it simply makes no sense.

OK, you are right about the chipsets. See what happens if you simply stop and explain things instead of just calling people ''retarted'' with a condescending attitude (you should spell check more often too, especially if you are attempting to insult somebody because it's just plain funny).

That being said, I am still right about the CPU's though

I wouldn't say that NOTHING takes advantage of USB 3.0
http://******/125453/intensitypro

I did say ''USB3 will be useful soon'' in that same post.

 

[BurningSkyline]

Very True.

I'm actually getting a little confused here. So which one is the most useful to a power user, and to a gamer?

 

[87dtna]

The AMD setup with the 870 board and Phenom II 955 quad for the best bang for the buck, Intel I5 760 with the P55 extreme for the absolute highest performance (per doller on the intel side).

Intel is better at gaming, but Phenom II quad's and/or hex cores can handle pretty much anything if overclocked.

 

[87dtna]

Got the Gigabyte board back yesterday. Same board I sent in, have not tested yet to maje sure the x16 slot works again. I wonder if they were as nice as ASRock and updated to the latest bios.

 

[linkin]

If the slot died I'm pretty sure they'd just replace the slot, unless you had other problems.

 

[87dtna]

Board's x16 slot works now, but gigabyte didn't update the Bios. So honestly, ASRock was faster and had better service. hmmm