They come out this quarter.

wat you smokin brah.

not the amds
you fucken dildo
go take those
crappy ass photos
with low res cameras
jajaja

Jealous less.

ok well stock there where results showing i7 was barely better than 955be stock vs stock, the 965 is clocked higher stock, so for gaming, should be pretty close


the thing is, $90 less, $50-100 less avg on mobo

And Bad Company 2 "uses up to 4 cores", but we all know how well that's optimized. Parallel programming isn't nearly as efficient as all these game makers like you to think it is. They're starting to get 2 cores, and now even 4 in some applications, but that game won't utilize 8 cores as efficiently as they're saying. Simple applications are much easier to write to be handled in parallel, but usually games and other programs that do complicated operations are the last ones that start to get optimized for being run over multiple threads.

FYI the only reason I bought an i7 is because I got one half price directly through Intel, otherwise for gaming I would've gone for the 965, it's far more cost efficient for GAMING PURPOSES ONLY. Is the i7 a better processor? Hands down, but you can't deny AMD hitting the low-mid level market and basically owning it price/performance wise. I agree with Ice completely on this one, not to mention both sides have said they plan to support 6 and 8 core processors on their sockets in the next few years.

This post was edited by BlackKnightsOfFistingPower on Feb 5 2010 09:15pm

You're also looking at 3.4 vs 2.6.

Even though it's different architecture, clocks still come into play.

Honestly, then that's the way it plays out. AMD wrote their architecture to handle less cycles per instruction at a higher clock frequency, whereas Intel wrote theirs to handle more cycles per instruction, at a lower clock. The only metric that should matter to the end user is what performance are they going to get, and at what cost. AMD does what they have to to keep up on a less efficient architecture, and that's make high frequency, but power efficient processor. I've heard that the Phenoms can get clocked up fairly high(up to 3.8 and even higher) on air, and i7 can get in the 3.4-3.6 range. So we can clearly see that the i7 wins in the OC race(which it should as it's an enthusiast chip), but if you're talking game performance, you really won't see much difference for the price that you're paying. Under stress situations that i7 MAY come through and get you an extra 5 fps when the CPU is being stressed, but under 90% of gaming situations, in 90% of games, you won't notice much of a difference, unless you're doing some video encoding, or file compression in the background while playing.

This post was edited by BlackKnightsOfFistingPower on Feb 5 2010 09:30pm

My own benching tells me otherwise
http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=32848421&f=188

Also, they didn't write their architecture, AMD's is definitely the underdog and a less efficient silicon, they're pushing their clocks to the limit of their architecture, any higher and enthusiast won't have any headroom to play with.

With i7, i can comfortably clock mine at 4.2 on air stable. Which is higher then what Phenoms can achieve.

Your benching really didn't tell me anything other than what I already said. If you can push your i7 to 4.2, but don't see a noticable performance increase in any games you benchmarked, what's the point? On your most stressful game, Crysis, the difference between a max clocked out i7, and a stock 955(which I was referring to the new, more power efficient revision of the 965) only does 2fps better. Other games where both processors pull over 100fps and nothing is really stressed don't really matter because they can trade blows, as seen in CSS and HL2. Yes AMD is currently beginning to push the limits of their current designs, but that's only because they're busy developing their 2 new architectures that will be implemented on hexacore and octocore processors in late 2010. As I said before, looking at your benchmarks, I can't see a reason why a gamer would pay upwards of $200 more for getting a negligible performance difference.

CSS and HL2 was buggy. Something was wrong. In Crysis, GPU was the bottleneck. Look at cpu intensive games like L4D. etc



This post was edited by Eek on Feb 5 2010 09:52pm