AMD 955 vs. I5-750

[kingneptune117]

Since the A-10C was announced I figured it was about time I built myself a new gaming rig. Im trying to decide if the 955 would run the A-10C better of if the 750 would. Im leaning towards the 955 because of its higher clock speed (I dont plan on overclocking right away since I will not be purchasing an aftermarket cooler.)

[SFJackBauer]

Clock number alone does not reveal performance differences.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/Left-4-Dead-1.0.0.5,1403.html

 

Look how the i5-750, despite being 2.66 GHZ, manages to get more FPS than a 955 running 3.2 GHz.

[kingneptune117]

yes but that is left 4 dead. DCS doesnt support multicores, so in terms of DCS and lock on clock speed matters more. For modern games the GPU is what matters.

[EtherealN]

...which means three of the I5's cores will be idle, giving it enough headroom to use TurboBoost to run the core that is being used at 3.2GHz - and then add a better architecture and you'll get noticeably better performance for-clock in DCS too.

 

You can only compare clock speed directly between processors that are directly related to each other. Too much differs in how AMD and Intel handle instruction pipelines, memory controllers, caches and so on to say that they're equal clock-for-clock even in DCS. That's just not the case. (Similarly, a 4GHz i5 will do noticeably better than my 4GHz Core2Duo.)

[SFJackBauer]

yes but that is left 4 dead. DCS doesnt support multicores, so in terms of DCS and lock on clock speed matters more. For modern games the GPU is what matters.

 

Left 4 Dead is a simple game graphics-wise, and the benchmark was run using a low resolution (1280x800). Thats why they reached hundreds of FPS in that case. So the GPU was not bottlenecking the system.

 

But fair enough, L4D indeed is multithreaded. Lets look at a single-threaded task - Winzip 12:

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-desktop-cpu-charts-update-1/WinZIP-12-8252,1400.html

 

i5 750 still faster (301 sec) against 955 (321 sec). Heck, even my Q9550 (2.8GHz) is faster than both (295 sec).

[kingneptune117]

Good points. I forgot about the turbo boost. I would only be saving around $20 with AMD route anyways.

 

Its just that I heard someone complaining a while ago that their new i5 build didnt run blackshark the way he expected. Then ive been hearing MTFdarkeagle praising the 955 so it seemed like the 955 would work great. UGHHHH such hard decisions..

[kingneptune117]

make that $40 dollars I would be saving. Do you guys think it is worth it to go with the i5?

[MTFDarkEagle]

You know my opinion ;-)

[kingneptune117]

dark eagle i know this is a lot to ask but do you think you could maybe put up a video of you playing black shark on your system? I like the AMD since AMD actually sticks to their sockets unlike intel...the 1156 is useless besides the i5. I want to see how yours performs.

[zakobi]

I'm in the same position as you king, so i'm gonna give ya a little advice ;)

Wait for autumn... Ssd will become cheaper during the summer, a new chip for blue-ray players will make those cheaper and in general things will become cheaper.

 

Between the 1366 and the 1156, afaik the first will be for high-end cpu (f.ex i7-9xx) and the other for middle-end cpu (i5-6xx, i5-750, i7-8xx)

[EtherealN]

In my opinion, best way to get an idea of how a system runs relative to another is to run a DCS track while FRAPS is counting frames - and to do so with specific settings so that another person can do the exact same thing and then see what difference it makes.

 

I would recommend this thread to get parameters and a track file that several other system have been running: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=45931

(And it's my thread, so it strokes my ego if people use it. :D )

 

Zakobi also gives good advice. Personally I am pretty much holding out for the C2D's to become extinct on the market, which I would expect to affect i5 prices. Then a cheap system can be bought again and lots of fun be had. :)