Jump to content

(Gaming) Phenom II x4 955 vs i7 / Waste of money


Recommended Posts

I can see where an i7 would have been a good choice for me as well. Most of the videos I end up rendering are over 10min long and in 720p or 1080p and these can take 15+ minutes to finish. An i7 would undoubtedly cut through these significantly quicker than my current processor. But seeing as I'm not exactly wealthy the Phenom II was a GREAT alternative for me. Now all I need is a better motherboard so I can overclock this little guy some more, being stuck at 3.5GHz with only 1.4v has me feeling like a race horse stuck behind the starting gates :bah:

Edited by XxHellxRaizerxX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I see what you were talking about. Now if you make those files into 4,8,12,16gigs or bigger you will see what I was talking about 10, 15 20,mins etc.

Well it depends which application you use. WinRAR is single-threaded so the 3.4GHz Phenom II pwns the 2.66GHz i7. Even the Q9650 beats it(Bu not much). But when you get to 7-zip which can exploit the eight threads of the i7, it's quite the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone choosing an i7 simply because the MOBO allows for Both Crossfire AND/OR Sli I would Go Here: http://www.xdevs.com/e107_plugins/content/....php?content.30

 

All i say now on this matter is Enjoy. ;)

 

Now on to other things, me being a Gamer (and overclocker) Primarily MY aim is to get the best performance in my Games, Anything Else such as zipping, video encoding Ect... Can wait.

We tailor make our PC's to Suit our individual needs, or atleast thats what we should be doing :P

 

I came from an Intel Pentium 4 Up to a Phenom 2 and the performance gains have been Phenomenal to say the least, Keeping this in mind i am More than willing to have a little PATIENCE and simply wait the extra 10 mins or whattever for a big file to finish zipping, hell id probably use the time to make me a hot pocket! Enjoy your life while you still can people! :lol:

 

Senital, Signing out B:)

Edited by SenitaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect answer Senital! Awesome website btw

 

Also for all the people that wanted to go LGA1156 instead of AM3

ONCE AGAIN, not only you will never get 6 cores or 8 cores while LGA1366 and AM3 will, but also you might want to reconsider if Overclocking is a must for you people:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3661

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget...rd,2436-15.html

 

Things look bad for Intel, I ALWAYS said that LGA1156 was bound to fail ANYWAY...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect answer Senital! Awesome website btw

 

Also for all the people that wanted to go LGA1156 instead of AM3

ONCE AGAIN, not only you will never get 6 cores or 8 cores while LGA1366 and AM3 will, but also you might want to reconsider if Overclocking is a must for you people:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3661

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget...rd,2436-15.html

 

Things look bad for Intel, I ALWAYS said that LGA1156 was bound to fail ANYWAY...

That's not the fault of the chips, that's the fault of the socket producer (Foxconn in this case).

 

There are no absolutes in computing no matter how tightly you try to define your problem though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative and top notch post dude. I have both a 955BE and an Intel i7 860. Both are overclocked and perform very well. The 860 gets a slightly higher score than the 955 but the 955 "seems" to run alot smoother in games. I will probably end up selling the 860 setup in favor of the 955 setup being topped with 5870's just because the differences are very minimal at best in what I do with my computer. So what if it takes a whole 1.1 second more to winzip my entire hard drive or two seconds more to rip a DVD to my hard drive with the 955.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FPS are all very well but aren't we getting to the stage were the human brain/eye and more importantly the monitor can't see things any differently?

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Edited by paulktreg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FPS are all very well but aren't we getting to the stage were the monitor and more importantly the human brain/eye can't see things any differently?

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

40FPS vs. 60FPS is quite a difference that's noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's monitors that interest me more. If a monitor as a refresh rate of lets say 60Hz, and a lot do, and a game as a FPS figure of lets say 120FPS (which could be written as 120Hz?), how does the monitor display the picture at the games intended rate?

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...