Phenom 940 vs Core i7 Benchies!

[ChronoDetector]

If these benchmarks are true, then yes, its quite impressive. I'll just wait and see more benchmarks being published when it comes out.

 

[Boostage]

I think you're missing something.
Performance/price consists of two things:
1) Price
2) Performance

You were comparing purely on price alone. If you do that, compare to Core2, which is in the same price range.
I was pointing out that Core i7 performs better, hence it is allowed to cost more (which follows automatically from the simple performance/price equation). Core i7 920 delivers the performance of the QX9770 at a fraction of the cost (and there is currently no AMD alternative that delivers this performance), hence Core i7 is better performance/price than Core2 at that level. Not just the CPU alone, but even if you factor in motherboard and memory costs.

How am I comparing just price when twice in my post I referred to..

performance/price.

You are using a qx9770 as your Core 2 reference. that is a chip that is also not better price/performance ratio. However what you are actually doing is comparing chip to chip. without factoring Ram and motherboard. the core i7 has been proven to perform better than its predecessors. but not at a justifiable price. that is my argument. if you build the most budget core i7 system. and I am using the lowest Newegg prices here:

MSI X58 Platinum $224.99
G.SKILL 3GB (3 x 1GB) $124.99
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz $299.99

For $650 this setup cant do what my current setup can do as it would be severely memory limited. this is using a bottom of the line Mobo and middle grade Ram.

My equivalent system:

Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz $299.99
ASUS P6T Deluxe $338.99
CORSAIR XMS3 DHX 8GB $352

Total $991


A Deneb System:

Ram.. Already owned
ASUS M3A78 AM2+/AM2 $80.99
Phenom II x4 920 $299
Total $381

My system..$330

My Upgrade path:
Deneb system $381
Core i7 system $991

In the end I cant justify an extra $610 for just a chip. Especially if these benches are true. maybe you can.

 

[Scali2]

How am I comparing just price when twice in my post I referred to..

Because you only mentioned prices, and never once got into the performance of the systems, which I can tell you is considerably different.

You are using a qx9770 as your Core 2 reference. that is a chip that is also not better price/performance ratio. However what you are actually doing is comparing chip to chip. without factoring Ram and motherboard.

No, I was approaching it from the performance-side, since you were approaching it from the price-side.
I picked the QX9770 because the reviews at the release of the Core i7 showed that the 920 was closest to the QX9770 in most benchmarks. Hence they have more or less the same performance. Therefore, whoever has the lower price, has the better performance/price. Which is the 920 in this case (even if you factor in motherboard and memory, because the 920 is THAT much cheaper.. You already demonstrated that in your post... $991 for a complete high-end 920 system. That's still less than the cost of a QX9770 alone, which is $1399 at Newegg). QED.

My equivalent system:

Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz $299.99
ASUS P6T Deluxe $338.99
CORSAIR XMS3 DHX 8GB $352

I think that is highly arbitrary. Why would you need a more expensive motherboard?
Benchmarks haven't shown great differences between the performance of the MSI and the Asus boards you mentioned.
The same goes for the memory. I can understand why you'd want more memory, but does it also have to be more expensive? Benchmarks have shown that triple-channel DDR3 is way overkill for current Core i7 CPUs, so you really don't need expensive high-performance memory.
So you can easily shave a few $100 off that price, without compromising performance.

A Deneb System:

Ram.. Already owned
ASUS M3A78 AM2+/AM2 $80.99
Phenom II x4 920 $299
Total $381

My system..$330

My Upgrade path:
Deneb system $381
Core i7 system $991

In the end I cant justify an extra $610 for just a chip. Especially if these benches are true. maybe you can.

I think you have been living under a rock?
These benchmarks are strictly game benchmarks, and at high resolutions/AA/AF settings (aka GPU-limited).
There is no reason to even get a super high-end Core2 for that, let alone a Core i7, because it will not affect your framerate one bit (unless you are running some kind of triple-SLI or quad XFire setup, but then ofcourse we will all laugh at any claims about 'not being able to justify cost'). Games currently are no reason to get a high-end CPU.

What we need is REAL benchmarks that show how the CPU REALLY performs. The LINPACK ones I posted earlier indicates that Intel still has a leg up on AMD... AMD's 2.7 GHz Shanghai cannot keep up with Intel's 2.66 GHz Nehalem.
I'm quite sure that we'll see that you'll generally need a Phenom II 940 to keep up with a Core i7 920, or perhaps even worse (I bet that especially in video encoding AMD is going to take a beating). And if it is indeed worse, then you should be looking at Core2, not at Core i7, because that's not what Phenom II will be competing against.

 

[Boostage]

Because you only mentioned prices, and never once got into the performance of the systems, which I can tell you is considerably different.

Even after I quoted myself mentioning performance/price, you still said I never mentioned performance. TWICE I mentioned price to performance ratio. and the core i7 fails here.



No, I was approaching it from the performance-side, since you were approaching it from the price-side.
I picked the QX9770 because the reviews at the release of the Core i7 showed that the 920 was closest to the QX9770 in most benchmarks. Hence they have more or less the same performance. Therefore, whoever has the lower price, has the better performance/price. Which is the 920 in this case (even if you factor in motherboard and memory, because the 920 is THAT much cheaper.. You already demonstrated that in your post... $991 for a complete high-end 920 system. That's still less than the cost of a QX9770 alone, which is $1399 at Newegg). QED.

I already said the QX9770 is also not a good performance/price ratio chip. even worse than the i7. so you can get off that cpu now. clearly we are talking about mainstream chips here(sub $500) obviously the average person cannot afford the QX9770. its the whole reason why we are even discussing performance/price ratio right now, as its a topic quite often brought up by the average person.

I think that is highly arbitrary. Why would you need a more expensive motherboard?
Benchmarks haven't shown great differences between the performance of the MSI and the Asus boards you mentioned.
The same goes for the memory. I can understand why you'd want more memory, but does it also have to be more expensive? Benchmarks have shown that triple-channel DDR3 is way overkill for current Core i7 CPUs, so you really don't need expensive high-performance memory.
So you can easily shave a few $100 off that price, without compromising performance.

I trust Asus, and I feel they make the best consumer boards, others might feel gigabyte, or MSI etc. I actually Dont like MSI boards, the reason is not important for this conversation. therefore when I build a system, I choose not to get a PCchips, or MSI board over an Asus just because its $75 cheaper, many others feel the same way. Who are you tell anyone on here what brand board and quality ram to go with? your justification is to cut corners and risk quality to offset the inflated price. when the system you are upgrading from saw no such compromise?

I think you have been living under a rock?
These benchmarks are strictly game benchmarks, and at high resolutions/AA/AF settings (aka GPU-limited).
There is no reason to even get a super high-end Core2 for that, let alone a Core i7, because it will not affect your framerate one bit (unless you are running some kind of triple-SLI or quad XFire setup, but then ofcourse we will all laugh at any claims about 'not being able to justify cost'). Games currently are no reason to get a high-end CPU.

As much as your like to debate on here, you are pretty bad at it. You are saying these benches are just gaming, and the cpu is capable of excelling in other types of applications. even though the reason we started this discussion was because you said..

if the Core i7 920 is $290, while the Phenom II 940 is $275, but the 920 is more than 6% faster (which it probably is), the i7 920 has the best price/performance ratio

No where did you mention anything about other types of apps? matter of fact you made the statement inside of a thread about gaming benchmarks between the Deneb and Core i7.

Lets assume the benches are accurate.. then explain to me again how the core i7 is a better perfomance/price ratio than a Deneb, just after saying you don't need even a high end C2D for gaming. Dont change your story now and say, all this time you meant video encoding, and RAR compression. when you made the statement about the i7 being a better bargain.. you know.. in the gaming benchmark thread..

 

[Atech]

No where did you mention anything about other types of apps? matter of fact you made the statement inside of a thread about gaming benchmarks between the Deneb and Core i7.

Looking for CPU limitations in GPU limited benches =
Infinite fail

 

[Scali2]

Even after I quoted myself mentioning performance/price, you still said I never mentioned performance. TWICE I mentioned price to performance ratio. and the core i7 fails here.

I didn't mean the word 'performance', I meant the performance itself, you never compared the performance of Phenom II and Core i7. In fact, you can't even, because there aren't any decent benchmarks.

I already said the QX9770 is also not a good performance/price ratio chip. even worse than the i7. so you can get off that cpu now. clearly we are talking about mainstream chips here(sub $500) obviously the average person cannot afford the QX9770. its the whole reason why we are even discussing performance/price ratio right now, as its a topic quite often brought up by the average person.

Point is that Core i7 920 brought previously 'inaffordable' performance levels to a 'mainstream' price of $299.

I trust Asus, and I feel they make the best consumer boards, others might feel gigabyte, or MSI etc. I actually Dont like MSI boards, the reason is not important for this conversation. therefore when I build a system, I choose not to get a PCchips, or MSI board over an Asus just because its $75 cheaper, many others feel the same way. Who are you tell anyone on here what brand board and quality ram to go with? your justification is to cut corners and risk quality to offset the inflated price. when the system you are upgrading from saw no such compromise?

I'm not going to take you seriously. Firstly... comparing MSI to PCChips and saying it is a 'compromise' in terms of quality is nonsense. MSI is up there with brands like Asus and Gigabyte in terms of quality.
Secondly, I never said anything about the quality of the ram, just about the speed. The ram you selected was overkill. A cheaper kit of ram, even from Corsair, would not affect performance or quality.

No where did you mention anything about other types of apps? matter of fact you made the statement inside of a thread about gaming benchmarks between the Deneb and Core i7.

Sorry I overestimated you. I thought most people here already knew that game benchmarks haven't made any sense for CPU performance in a while now. Apparently you don't. See Atech's previous post for an explanation.

Lets assume the benches are accurate.. then explain to me again how the core i7 is a better perfomance/price ratio than a Deneb, just after saying you don't need even a high end C2D for gaming. Dont change your story now and say, all this time you meant video encoding, and RAR compression. when you made the statement about the i7 being a better bargain.. you know.. in the gaming benchmark thread..

Again, sorry I overestimated you. I indeed meant general performance, these benchmarks don't measure CPU performance, as most people here know. So drawing any kind of performance-related conclusions from the benchmarks in this thread doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Therefore I never commented on these benchmarks, and didn't even bother to question whether they were real or not. It simply doesn't matter whether they're real or not.

 

[Casper312]

you guys argue too dang much but its fun, so continue

anyways like i said, i hope these cpus do good, and make me regret going intel

 

[Binge]

But they aren't. Core i7 is more powerful. I don't see how you could think otherwise, with the benchmarks already released.
Also, HT doesn't necessarily make Core i7 faster.
Look at this for example:
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=529

Firstly, you'll see that the Core i7 is actually faster when HT is disabled.
Secondly you'll see that the Core i7 at 2.66 GHz beats the Shanghai at 2.7 GHz.
In fact, taking the most favourable numbers for Shanghai, we see it's 38.4 vs 35.5, meaning Core i7 actually has an 8% lead, so more than the 6% required.

Which proves that Core i7's cores are more powerful, at least for this kind of workload.
We will be seeing more of this as more benchmarks trickle in, I'm sure (in fact, this is not even such a good case for Nehalem, looking at how well the Penryn-based Xeon still keeps up. We've seen bigger performance differences in benchmarks between Nehalem and Penryn in many desktop benchmarks. Its real power lies elsewhere).

Yeah I did a test of my own last night (sometimes I think reviews are rushed), and the i7 smoked everything with HT off. I was impressed. Cheers!

 

[majorbabu]

any one know when the NDA ends?

 

[xdivenx]

This is not the fucking Intel forum, stop arguing or this is getting reported.