1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

    Dismiss Notice

Comparison of 1156/1366/AM3 clocked at 3.8

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by 95thrifles, 11 Sep 2009.

  1. 95thrifles

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 15 Nov 2008

    Posts: 6,970

    As title suggest, anandtech have done some clock for clock comparisons whilst OCd instead of just at stock, should be interesting for most
    Edit: updated
     
    Last edited: 16 Sep 2009
  2. gurusan

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2006

    Posts: 13,489

    Location: Portland, OR

    Interesting, I sort of wish they would have thrown in a Yorkfield at 3.8GHz as well...I understand it's not a new chip but it would put the numbers into better perspective for prospective buyers IMO.
     
  3. kieves1

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Feb 2009

    Posts: 1,355

    The bit that intrested me in that link was

    will post several benchmark results later today based on our motherboard test suite. Anand will provide a more in-depth analysis next week along with an updated look at the Core i7/860. He might even have a surprise announcement from AMD
    Wonder what the surprise announcment could be. 975 maybe or a new stepping release to get past the elusive 3.8 on air barrier.
     
  4. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,227

    Location: Surrey

    I'm sure this is just a driver issue but I didn't expect that.
     
  5. gurusan

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2006

    Posts: 13,489

    Location: Portland, OR

  6. Tom|Nbk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 12 Mar 2006

    Posts: 22,465

    Location: England

    Agreed, that've been nice
     
  7. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,227

    Location: Surrey

    Wow, impressive. It's interesting that AM3 with AMD gfx is not so hot but AM3 with nV beats the I5/I7 with nV. Unless this is a glitch somewhere then AM3 seems the best current platform for single GPU gaming (as long as you get an nV).
     
  8. Hotwired

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Aug 2009

    Posts: 7,804

    How very embarrassing.

    AMD CPU + it's competitors GPU works better than with its own. More to the point it works unbelievably better than all the rest.
     
  9. gurusan

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2006

    Posts: 13,489

    Location: Portland, OR

    Intriguing, ain't it...I'm very curious as to the reason for this.
     
  10. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,227

    Location: Surrey

    And I wonder how well AM2 or S775 would run on those tests with a GTX 275?
     
  11. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 24,701

    Why didn't they do the game tests with all CPU's at 3.8ghz I thought that was the point of the article?
     
  12. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 24,701

    It doesn't work better it's just the GTX275 is faster in those games at those particular settings.

    The reason the Intel's lag behind is because they're still at stock settings and are CPU limited, that's why on the Intel systems the GTX 275 isn't showing any significant gains compared to 4890.

    At stock yes, Phenom @3.4ghz is 7-10fps faster than i7 920@2.8ghz in those benchmarks.
     
    Last edited: 15 Sep 2009
  13. Hades

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 25,227

    Location: Surrey


    Yes, fair point about the stock speed.
     
  14. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 24,701

    The game benchmarks are a mixture between CPU and GPU limited so you can't really tell anything from them with such varying cpu speeds, will they be adding 3.8ghz results later?
     
  15. Hotwired

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Aug 2009

    Posts: 7,804

    They should really have done the gaming tests with the same stock/ht/turbo/oc options as on the rest.

    Still, it is showing that on stock the AMD chip is a decent performer for gaming.
     
  16. paininlife

    Hitman

    Joined: 14 Jul 2009

    Posts: 514

    Location: Birmingham

    well, i gues we alreadi discussed abt AMD Pii 955 at 3.8 vs i7 920 @3.8 ghz (follow the link in first post)and it showed that both were very much close to each other,but if its 965 thn it wil def take the lead, so i wud say that for gaming rig AMD is the way to go :)
     
  17. 95thrifles

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 15 Nov 2008

    Posts: 6,970

    "Last, but not least, I only ran the i5/750 without turbo enabled and the P45/C2Q setup is missing. I am still completing those numbers"

    What gives you the impression they reset everything to stock for the game benchies? as far as I can tell these were run at 3.8 too, I think it doesnt specify on the graph purely because of lack of space, but Id be very suprised if they werent run at 3.8 seen as as you say its the point of the article
     
  18. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 24,701

    Well the most obvious reason is that the Phenom would not be so far in front without an 800Mhz advantage.

    Also, unlike the rest of the tests it doesn't state 3.8Ghz for any of the results and also Turbo is used on all Intel CPU's, if it was a 3.8Ghz test then turbo would be disabled as it is on all the other tests.

    I'm 100% certain that they have simply neglected to do the game tests with any CPUs at 3.8Ghz, instead running all at stock which as we all agree defies the point of the article (unless he got slipped some cash from AMD :p).
     
    Last edited: 27 Oct 2009
  19. 95thrifles

    Perma Banned

    Joined: 15 Nov 2008

    Posts: 6,970

    bit of a late reply, lol

    Techreport have since done some tests comparing platforms with gpu for in game performance, as can be seen from the chart below, at low res (cpu dependant situation) intel wins, however at higher res (gpu dependant situation) AMD and old 775 outperform new i5/i7, seen as how most people use a res around 1920x1200 this is more sgnificant

    [​IMG]
     
  20. mmj_uk

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 24,701

    Ye I was doing a search and came across it. :p

    With all the CPUs at 3.8Ghz and in high resolutions I would expect all to perform similarly in games due to the GPU bottlenecks you mentioned, but in situations such as low resolutions or when the CPU's aren't being held back by other compnents the i5/i7 should excel as with almost every other application.
     
    Last edited: 27 Oct 2009