i5 vs. Phenom II

it does, it sucks so much. i could buy the parts that i need in the U.S. for around $500 less.
 
And the i5 is just an i7 with no HT and lower memory bandwidth.

Seriously, what do you do for a living? Fast food? Computers isn't your expertise, or you would've chosen legitimate benchmarks, or at least realized that a Core i5 overclocked 1.5GHz over stock compared to a stock P2 X4 965 would obvioulsy favor the i5.

How about we compare a Ferrari to a Volkswagon next?

You do realize what the simulation was for? I don't think you do. It performs exactly the same as the i5 with the core disabled and the DDR3 memory in dual channel mode. The game benchmarks weren't simulated.. Lastly, the stock i5 processor does come at 2.66Ghz. So, please, STFU.
 
You do realize what the simulation was for? I don't think you do. It performs exactly the same as the i5 with the core disabled and the DDR3 memory in dual channel mode. The game benchmarks weren't simulated.. Lastly, the stock i5 processor does come at 2.66Ghz. So, please, STFU.

There is a benchmark where they run the i5 750 at 4.1GHz. This is what he is referring to. Oh, and by the way, simulations don't necessarily run like the real deal. There are simulations that report different results than those of the actual event.
 
http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/page9.html
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i5-and-i7-Processors-and-P55-Chipset/?page=14
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i5-and-i7-Processors-and-P55-Chipset/?page=9
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410-10.html


My personal favorite review site.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...e-i5-750-core-i7-870-processor-review-16.html

There is a benchmark where they run the i5 750 at 4.1GHz. This is what he is referring to. Oh, and by the way, simulations don't necessarily run like the real deal. There are simulations that report different results than those of the actual event.

Yeah, but they still showed the stock speed of the i5 at 2.66Ghz and that still beat the 965. The i5 chips are easily hitting 4.0Ghz all around and it's to show the power of the new chip. I wouldn't call the second benchmark illegitimate because it shows the stock AND overclocked scores.
 
Rohan23 said:
Yeah, but they still showed the stock speed of the i5 at 2.66Ghz and that still beat the 965. The i5 chips are easily hitting 4.0Ghz all around and it's to show the power of the new chip. I wouldn't call the second benchmark illegitimate because it shows the stock AND overclocked scores.

The second website is fine.

I just read a couple of reviews of the LGA1156 and it's really quite something. I didn't realize the extent to which they "improved" LGA1366 (added PCI-e). Additionally, Turbo Boost is more aggressive to the point where if you're using a single core you're getting five bins (+667MHz on clock--has to be Core i7). You know, it's really something. AMD will suffer heavily from this. They have got to change to a more dynamic architecture if they want to keep up with Intel.

I change my vote from AMD to Intel.

edit: I wonder if you could change the base clock of the Turbo Boost so that when you're using 1 core it increases by more than 133Mhz per bin. That would add a whole new dimension to overclocking!
 
The Turbo is limited by the Vcore isn't it? They can only increase it so much on the fly to not damage the chip from the increase in volts and heat.

Dude, I know what I'm talking about, haha. I'm glad you switched over. I'm not a fanboy the way. I've recommended AMD and ATI cards when properly needed. I own and use a 4870 myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom