Thai09 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 12:14am:



Blind loyalty, Parrot mentality, You two are so ignorant it gives me a headache. If you actually kept up with the hardware then you would know what is the best, PROFESSIONALS review these chips and they tell you what is best based on benchmarks that mimic what a computer would do under normal situations.  If you read these reviews you may not know as much about the hardware than the reviewer but you learn a lot.
The best part about a benchmark is that it gives you a NUMBER that you can compare to all of the other chips, and based on these numbers that NNNG has already shown you the core i7 is FAR superior than phenom II if you are looking at just the performance side.

Speed of light, why would he follow your ridiculous method of comparing FSX experiences with you when he already has his set up so that he gets the best experience possible with help setting everything up from Nick N (just like most other people on this forum), who knows a hell of a lot more about hardware and FSX than all of us. If you're interested he also advises to use i7.


I also strongly advise NNNG to not continue to reply to your posts because you obviously don't know when to quit and realise that you are wrong and he can never win because of this.

I said I wasn't going to jump into a flamewar, and I will try not to, BUT...

I think the Phenom guys are totally ignoring the issue of the superiority of the DDR3.  So, if I understand correctly, because the Phenom's memory bandwidth is so much lower, FSX is handing the processors lower res textures, which of course leads to higher (although completely artificial) framerates.  Most simmers actually care about blurries, but some don't obviously.  My understanding of how the FSX scenery engine works might be wrong, but perhaps somebody can correct me if it is.

I wouldn't want to run my th2go+gobs of heavy addons on the Phenom.  My RAM was originally 9-9-9, as shipped and one of the best investments I made was upgrading to something a lot faster. [EDIT#2:  which I think the Core I7 does a better job being able to utilize] I think the Phenom sounds like a great processor if you have a smaller setup with less discriminating tastes, but if you want to go larger and make a veritable flight simulator, I'm not sure I would go that route.

The 30 frames per second on world in conflict doesn't sound all that high to me.  I haven't played it on a core i7, but I have a gut feeling that my particular system would blow that out of the water if I used a single 1280x1024 display.  Maybe that is only because of the SLI, I don't know.  I'm trying to be careful when comparing systems in vastly different price ranges with very different components.

EDIT#1:  Just for technical correctness, when I say the "Phenom's memory bandwidth" is a lot lower, I meant to say that the motherboard he is using (AM2??? socket..?) doesn't accomodate DDR3, or if he has the AM3, he isn't taking advantage of it.  Let us just say, whatever the Phenom capabilities, his DDR2 is a definite choke point.  So if he were using DDR3, I think his fast frame rates would quickly go a lot lower and turn into a mess of unbearable stutters in the 3D, lots-of-addons arena.  Perhaps someone can set me straight on the nuances of the computer architecture if I am saying something incorrect here.

Quote:

No.

If you posted them pictures on an i7 I would say that it does not necessarily show what you will get on a properly set up simulation. If you want pictures of what a clocked i7 system can do, go look at screenshots by Fly2e or Nick N.

And once again you are deliberately being dishonest, and are twisting what I have said to suit your own agenda.

Quote:

Your logic is retarded as is your reading comprehension skills. I could probably write responses to your posts with what I've already written, but I digress...

I posted pictures of my sim not only looking better than yours but performing better than yours. You called me an " egotistical guy that just doesn't want to lose" and called the pictures "photoshopped".

You then posted pictures in mostly slower aircraft like a helicopter despite them STILL showing blurries. These screenshots are NOT impressive AT ALL. The framerate is also similar or lower than mine.


I really would love to have a conversation with you. It would be like clubbing seals. Really.

You cannot prove that an AMD and ATi combination is faster than a Core i7 and Nvidia combination. You cannot.

A good experience with Phenom II does not mean it's better than anything else.

Thinking the Phenom II is faster than Core i7 is about as logical as calling the Pentium 4 faster than a Core i7 in FSX ONLY because of the LACK of ANY FAIR comparison. Furthermore, what you are saying is not shown in any benchmarks.

I can take very good pictures with a Pentium 4 / X800 (or 9600GT) if I wanted to. It is EXACTLY like what you're doing actually.






Your argument in summary:

"Oh look, nobody has posted a screenshot showing an i7 or Phenom II getting this performance or better. Therefore Core 2 Quad Q6600 is the best processor there is. Have you gotten over 1300 frames per second? BET NOT. All benchmarks that say the i7 975 is over twice as fast as the Q6600 are wrong because I said so with no evidence. All benchmarks are useless. They are what geeks use, people living in the real world make claims out of thin air. Why spend $250 on a Phenom II 965 or $1000 on a Core i7 975 when a Q6600 is faster and cheaper than both, and at an acceptable price of ONLY $100 on ebay. BUY IT NOW. Besides, why do you talk about the Q6600 being garbage when you do not even own one? You cannot prove otherwise no matter because fair benchmarks by respectable sources are fake and you do not even own one. If the Core i7 and Phenom II is really faster than a Q6600 then why am I getting acceptable performance? Anyone that claims otherwise is blind parroting, sheep going with what pop-culture tells them to while bending over from big expensive evil companies like Intel and AMD. It all has to do with the non-integrated memory controller the Q6600 has, and the way the northbridge communicates to the 8800GT enabling better performance with an intel and nvidia graphics card. BUY IT NOW. How dare you tell me otherwise, DO NOT TELL ME WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT WORK".



Quote:

Your the one that was preaching to me about which was the better overclocker. Getting to 6 seconds in superPI does indeed make it better at overclocking.


You really just cannot admit you were wrong. It's simply impossible for you.

speed of light, kind of an off topic question but are you religious?

Thai09 wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 5:31am:


And why exactly are you still here?

Now that is what I was talking about! ALL I WANTED WAS A DANG OL' SCREENY WITH BIG FRAMES. So you've done it. Hit WAY over 1000, but settings are low, I'm sure, just like on my 900 something. GOOD, and THANK YOU ALREADY! So, I'm not on my own little island. So, even though I get great performance, it can't possibly keep up with an i7. Good. Thank you.
Was that so hard? You could have done that a while ago, rather than flame me and this thread about some Intel dogma garbage, and proven it.
Also, I have checked prices online at my favorite shopper "heaven" if you will, frys.com, and seen that even if the i7 is so much more awesome than my Phenom II, Intel must like their chips too much. They want $500+ minimum for one. I got my Phenom II for $195.99. I say that even though you can beat me with minimal settings by 300+ FPS, the difference is still 900-1200 Intel for the win. I would never notice that, and I would also not notice the difference between 45 for AMD to 48 for Intel in a busy area to justify the $300+ difference. If you want the FASTEST PROCESSOR on EARTH, go with intel then. I concede. However, is 3-5 frames gonna make $300-$800 worth of difference to even the most difficult consumer? I dunno. I've never done it, and won't. This is why I don't care about benchmarks, theory, junk like that. To me, seeing what I want to do run great is the bottom line.
What it really boils down to, how much are you willing to spend, when you can get ALMOST IDENTICAL performance for WAAAAYY cheaper? Hmmm...
DDR2 is not my choke point. SOmebody said this. I can't say this is true. I'm sure that latencies are far more important than MHz. 3-channel makes a difference, but your 1600 MHz RAM operates at MAX right now 7-7-6-18. Most are doing 1600 MHz @ 8-8-8-24. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will try) if you're waiting for 8 clock-cycles to do what ddr2 can hit in 4 (strobe, write, read, charge, etc) then how is this better? 1600MHz at 8-8-8-24 roughly = 800 MHz @ 4-4-4-12. This is the "loosening internal clock cycles" arguement you tried to make back there somewhere, yes? No? I left the timings alone, OC it to 1066 @ 2.05V, and OC the CPU multi to get 3.8GHz. Stable 24-7, and I didn't spend $999.99 for just the CPU.
I built this entire machine 1.5 years ago for 1/2 as much as the i7 975 alone. VC, MoBo, phenom 9850 BE, 8GB RAM, and 850W PSU, $500. Win 7 64 for $100. Just 3 or so weeks ago, Phenom II for $195 just to keep up with the times, and bam. 750$ (for the ENTIRE system running), and PHENOMenal performance. I'd get an average Intel and HD for that. Can't play without the ol' MoBo. And what about that VC? Crap! I need 12 GB DDR3 ram for that 3-channel, too. Over doubling (near triple) my cost for 5% better performance. That has been my point all along. When you start yackin about benchmarks, I already tuned you out. Your scores are more than 2X mine, but FSX doesn't run 2x as good. MAX, you got a couple, maybe 8 tops more frames than me. After 40 or so, it really doesn't matter much. AMD's 60 to Intel 68 doesn't seem 2x as good to me, and definitely not 3x, like the difference in price suggests. My screen has a 60 hz refresh rate. If we're gonna start yackin about bottlenecks, that's it! After 24, it's better than TV and movies.
It's about time, Sir Yack-a-lot. All I asked you to do was post a friggin screeny on YOUR OWN system, and you finally figured it out. Was it at KEDW? Where did you see these frames? How can I do that? Wait, I'm already doing almost all of it...
The question I want REAL performance people to ask themselves is, "Is intel REALLY better? Or is it just a little better with a HORRIBLE price?" "Your benchmarks are GREAT, but FSX still only runs a || thin margin better. Was that $300-$800 really worth it?"
Moral of the Story: You be the judge; Get out of the "box". Think for yourself.

Figure out for yourself what a benchmark score REALLY is, and remember that YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PLAY A DANG BENCHMARK. At most, I only use them to test stability after an OC tweak. That is a VERY practical use for a benchmark tool. However, as we have seen here, just because a score says one is better than the other, how does it stack up against what you really want it to do?
Use advice very carefully, as everyone will have something very different to say. Do you want to spend a bunch of money, or do you want to give the herd a good run for their money?
Hmmmm...

snippyfsxer wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 1:23am:



So now we have AMD textures/framerates and Intel textures/framerates too, LOL!

Weird logic I must say...

Speedoflight's textures looks flawless to me, but they are AMD TEXTURES, LOL!

U guys are really something

Actually speed of light a few months ago i built a system for my friend with the cheapest parts that I could find for an i7 gaming system (the 920) and it came out to around $950, and I am sorry to report but you are WAAY over exaggerating the price difference.

i7 920 $288
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

Phenom II 965 $200
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103692&cm_re=phenom_II-...

Also I asked if you were religious simply because you seem to blindly follow your brand completely ignoring all scientific facts brought before you.

Brett, I believe NNNG just wanted to show him which was better because it isn't a good idea to give false information that would lead to someone not getting what they wanted.