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

87dtna said:
No, it's an I7 860 without HT.



:rolleyes: Benchmarks are made to mimic real apps, why do you think we use them?

He did say ''a lot'' of rendering.
Click to expand...

You do them because "I got higher number" "no, I got higher number". That is all. If you were in the UK, I would invite you right now to bring your system here now and set mine and yours up side by side, then I would rig 1 system up to each of my 2 monitors, hide the systems from sight, and then ask you to point out which monitor has which computer on. I defy you to be able to tell the difference, because although mine is "lower end" :rolleyes: it is as good as the worlds greatest system (with the exception of load times due to lack of SSD) for my needs, however benches would tell a different story

and your benchmarks proved what I was getting at:

Who gives a flying fiddle about 0-4 seconds (generally) or less than 10 fps difference? 4 seconds of my life would be quite nice to get back when I'm laying on my death bed, but I waste more than that every day, so couldn't care less about having to sit 4 seconds longer whilst my system renders something or runs a benchmark.

The only time the i5 really trumps the thuban is in the games, but again, 50fps is ample. That is, by anyones standards, running smooth, so who cares, except for those that get mildly aroused by numbers on a screen?
 
Aastii said:
You do them because "I got higher number" "no, I got higher number". That is all. If you were in the UK, I would invite you right now to bring your system here now and set mine and yours up side by side, then I would rig 1 system up to each of my 2 monitors, hide the systems from sight, and then ask you to point out which monitor has which computer on. I defy you to be able to tell the difference, because although mine is "lower end" :rolleyes: it is as good as the worlds greatest system (with the exception of load times due to lack of SSD) for my needs, however benches would tell a different story

and your benchmarks proved what I was getting at:

Who gives a flying fiddle about 0-4 seconds (generally) or less than 10 fps difference? 4 seconds of my life would be quite nice to get back when I'm laying on my death bed, but I waste more than that every day, so couldn't care less about having to sit 4 seconds longer whilst my system renders something or runs a benchmark.

The only time the i5 really trumps the thuban is in the games, but again, 50fps is ample. That is, by anyones standards, running smooth, so who cares, except for those that get mildly aroused by numbers on a screen?
Click to expand...


And I would gladly take you up on that challenge no problem. I've owned plenty of AMD cpu's and setups, and tons of intel setups. The difference is quite noticeable (phenom II vs socket 1156 cpu's). Have you owned an I5 or I7 setup?

4 seconds is a lot, BTW. But that being said, the I5 760 was faster at rendering than a Phenom II 955 (which is 400mhz higher clock) by 15 seconds. Clock for clock, I'm betting 20+ seconds. I didn't look, but if it's 4 seconds faster than thuban, thats pretty sad. The AMD has 2 more cores, and still can't beat intel's year old quad core.

The I5 trumps ANY amd in EVERY single threaded app, real life or bench. This is how you can tell that intel is faster, because most apps are single threaded and will run faster on intel. Even an internet window is faster...everything.
 
87dtna said:
And I would gladly take you up on that challenge no problem. I've owned plenty of AMD cpu's and setups, and tons of intel setups. The difference is quite noticeable (phenom II vs socket 1156 cpu's). Have you owned an I5 or I7 setup?

4 seconds is a lot, BTW. But that being said, the I5 760 was faster at rendering than a Phenom II 955 (which is 400mhz higher clock) by 15 seconds. Clock for clock, I'm betting 20+ seconds. I didn't look, but if it's 4 seconds faster than thuban, thats pretty sad. The AMD has 2 more cores, and still can't beat intel's year old quad core.

The I5 trumps ANY amd in EVERY single threaded app, real life or bench. This is how you can tell that intel is faster, because most apps are single threaded and will run faster on intel. Even an internet window is faster...everything.
Click to expand...


I don't think you are understanding, I'm not saying 4 seconds isn't a lot for a benchmark, I'm saying in real world terms, that is normal, every day use, not benchmarks 4 seconds is nothing at all. Just as a single example (just about all the benches in your link show the same sort of difference between the 2, with them tradeing blows, the occasional 1 or 2 being equal, and as I said, only the games showing any major difference)

Windows Media Encoder 9 x64:

Thuban: 32 seconds
i5: 29 seconds

3 seconds difference. So what?

To give another example, someone in my CoD clan just built a new system, i7-860, 4GB memory, GTX460 1GB, Vertex 2 + 1TB Caviar Green Storage. In any of the games we have played, CoD4, CoH, MoH beta, MW2, HL2, few more but can't remember off top of my head, but all had the same fps at same, full settings. Only when we uncapped them was a difference found, but when I'm getting ~220fps lowest in any of those games and he is getting ~300fps lowest... who cares, you can't tell the difference there anyway. The only time he beat me was loading because of him having an SSD and me having a HDD

I've not owned any Intel i setup, no, but I have built them for customers and used them before giving to them for overclocking, testing etc, as well as using them when at friends houses/LAN parties, so I have used them, know what they are capable of, and know that unless you go and stick numbers to what you are experiencing, you can't tell the difference.

I completely agree with you that clock for clock the i processors are faster, and I agree that thuban are indeed a dissapointment for a hex core processor, and that at the moment Intel is on top for performance, but what I am saying is in real world usage, unless you are doing serious number crunching/rendering, you will see absolutely no difference what so ever, so either is a good choice, but as the Athlon x4 mentioned is substantially cheaper, that would be the better choice
 
I understand just fine. I said apps, meaning ones you use everyday, are single threaded most of the time. Intel whips AMD in single threaded apps.

3 seconds here, 1 second there, 10 seconds there, it all adds up to several minutes if you are on a PC a good chunk of the day.

As I already said, I could tell you within 30 seconds which PC was AMD vs intel with an internet window.

Everything on my PC is just about instantaneous, and not just because of the SSD. I have a WD caviar black in my backup PC, which is an I3 setup, and it's just as fast. The only difference I can notice is loading time for games. When I had the Phenom II setups, noticeably slower. Yeah as we said it's only a second here and there, but having stuff come up instantly is really nice.
 
87dtna said:
I understand just fine. I said apps, meaning ones you use everyday, are single threaded most of the time. Intel whips AMD in single threaded apps.

3 seconds here, 1 second there, 10 seconds there, it all adds up to several minutes if you are on a PC a good chunk of the day.

As I already said, I could tell you within 30 seconds which PC was AMD vs intel with an internet window.

Everything on my PC is just about instantaneous, and not just because of the SSD. I have a WD caviar black in my backup PC, which is an I3 setup, and it's just as fast. The only difference I can notice is loading time for games. When I had the Phenom II setups, noticeably slower. Yeah as we said it's only a second here and there, but having stuff come up instantly is really nice.
Click to expand...

Only time I've ever noticed any kind of lag with my internet (using Opera) is if the internet itself is going slow, not with opening it up or loading pages. As soon as I click the Opera button, up it comes, no wait.

A second here and there aren't noticable. If you go on a 3 hour drive and get caught at 4 sets of traffic lights, when you get towards the end of your journey, you have forgotten about those traffic lights, heck once you are past them, you don't remember them, and it is the same thing with the computer, yea a couple seconds here and there add up, but it isn't affecting anything really, 1 extra minute in the daily use of a computer is nothing
 
Last edited:
LOL, whatever man.

So if both setups are the same price, why not go for the slightly barely noticeable faster one (I5 vs 1055t)? You talk about intel guys getting ''aroused'' by numbers but it seems like AMD fanboys get aroused by number of cores :o :O even though performance is still slower overall.
Plus, a decent P55 is gonna do SLI and Xfire, a HUGE factor if you use Nvidia cards.
 
87dtna said:
LOL, whatever man.

So if both setups are the same price, why not go for the slightly barely noticeable faster one (I5 vs 1055t)? You talk about intel guys getting ''aroused'' by numbers but it seems like AMD fanboys get aroused by number of cores :o :O even though performance is still slower overall.
Plus, a decent P55 is gonna do SLI and Xfire, a HUGE factor if you use Nvidia cards.
Click to expand...

Aastii said:
I completely agree with you that clock for clock the i processors are faster, and I agree that thuban are indeed a dissapointment for a hex core processor, and that at the moment Intel is on top for performance, but what I am saying is in real world usage, unless you are doing serious number crunching/rendering, you will see absolutely no difference what so ever, so either is a good choice, but as the Athlon x4 mentioned is substantially cheaper, that would be the better choice
Click to expand...

I'm not debating that between a Thuban and i5 he should get the thuban for cores, if I was given the choice I too would go with the i5 because it is quicker in games, which is what I do the most of, I wasn't defending the Thuban before, I was saying how pointless benchmarks are when you act like a few fps or a second or two here and there are the difference between having a game that is nothing more than a slideshow, or being able to go out for a 5 course meal, and still not have the process you were trying to do complete. Again, like I said in that quote, unless he is doing some CPU intensive stuff, an Athlon x4 will perform just as well as the i5 or thuban will, so the money would be better spent that way, as it would save money
 
I see. In that respect I agree, the Athlon II's are superior bang for the buck. But if he's a gamer along with all the rendering he does, and if he runs Nvidia cards, a good P55 board with an I5 will be better for it's SLI capabilities.

However, I am a strong believer in just getting one strong card VS SLI. The GTX460 chews up any game at any settings on 1080p. It's a beast, I recommend it to a lot of people.
 
Wrong. I was hoping someone would bring that up-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7172&cm_re=p55_extreme-_-13-157-172-_-Product

A comparable AMD board would be atleast an 890GX, which is about $125 on the cheapest decent brand thats still capable of 8x/8x Xfire.
Plus, the 2 year old ICH10R south bridge is STILL superior to the new AMD SB850.

And yet again, AMD chipsets offer no SLI like P55's will.


This is the best AM3 comparison I could find-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128438

Still a 790x chipset but it has the SB850 atleast which is much better than the 750. Does 8x/8x crossfire. But over $20 more than the P55 extreme when you include shipping costs.
 
Last edited:
87dtna said:
Wrong. I was hoping someone would bring that up-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...7172&cm_re=p55_extreme-_-13-157-172-_-Product

A comparable AMD board would be atleast an 890GX, which is about $125 on the cheapest decent brand thats still capable of 8x/8x Xfire.
Plus, the 2 year old ICH10R south bridge is STILL superior to the new AMD SB850.

And yet again, AMD chipsets offer no SLI like P55's will.


This is the best AM3 comparison I could find-

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128438

Still a 790x chipset but it has the SB850 atleast which is much better than the 750. Does 8x/8x crossfire. But over $20 more than the P55 extreme when you include shipping costs.
Click to expand...

Not really a fair comparison. Gigabyte vs. Asrock. Use a Asrock like this one. Does 8/8 in crossfire has SATA 6.0 and USB 3.0, which the Intel Asrock does not. Its 12 bucks cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157198

Add the Phenom II 955 for 140 bucks.

AMD Total 230 bucks.

Intel even with the Asrock and a i750 = 297 bucks.

AMD setup is 70 bucks cheaper.
 
StrangleHold said:
Not really a fair comparison. Gigabyte vs. Asrock. Use a Asrock like this one. Does 8/8 in crossfire has SATA 6.0 and USB 3.0, which the Intel Asrock does not. Its 12 bucks cheaper.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157198

Add the Phenom II 955 for 140 bucks.

AMD Total 230 bucks.

Intel even with the Asrock and a i750 = 297 bucks.

AMD setup is 70 bucks cheaper.
Click to expand...

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.

Is the AMD setup better bang for the buck? Absolutely, for gaming especially that is one awesome setup on the cheap. I recommend that 870 board all the time. But the I5 eats the 955 up in every aspect.-

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


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.
 
Dillan500 said:
lol im sorry thats funny.


athlonIIx4 vs PhenomIIx3

dont you have the potential to unlock the 4th core in the phenom?
Click to expand...

You do, however you aren't deffinately going to be getting a quad core. And the phenom II x3 only come OEM, so you will have to be getting an aftermarket heatsink, not a bad thing, but still pushes the price up further
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top