Phenom II vs Core i7 Hardware Review Ashutosh Mukherjee ashutosh@desdevpro.com http://www.desdevpro.com 11 Sept 2009 Reveiw Hardware AMD Phenom Core i7 Is AMD better than Intel for gaming? Specifically, the Phenom II and Core i7 respectively. Today, we'll attack the big question straight up by using the exact same setups except for the AMD/Intel core components. And we're going to chart the performance differences in many different scenarios, at stock and overclocked CPU speeds, in single and dual graphics card configurations, and at different resolutions. Introduction hw001_main.jpg Gamers have competitive streaks, plain and simple. Doesn't matter whether you're a casual or hardcore gamer, by definition you want to compete at some level. But there is a unique attribute that is common to all gamers and thats the passion for gaming which can only be understood by a gamer himself. Its within them somewhere deep inside them. Passion can be a good thing, when harnessed, and computer gamers certainly have passionate streaks as well. A result of passion, when directed to a particular company, is properly known as brand loyalty. Infact, companies almost love brand loyalty, and they spend very large sums of money to cultivate and foster brand loyalty. In the tech world, those that have a strong brand loyalty are usually known by another, more common name: fanboys. The companies owes much of their earnings to their fanboys. Fanboys are the ones who support and regard the companies products. Ah yes, the ATI vs Nvidia, AMD vs Intel flame wars; nothing quite stirs a tech world than such lively debates. Today we're interested in the latter of those: AMD vs Intel. Yes, dear friends, it doesn't get much more contentious than that. We've decided to tackle the debate head-on, and specifically a hot topic that straight away sets off the gaming passion: is AMD or Intel better for gaming? Specifically, the Phenom II and Core i7 respectively. There are pros and cons to each, and we've seen some people attempt to tackle that debate, but to date we believe the comparisons are fundamentally flawed, such as using different graphics cards or dual/quad cores to compare. But,today, we'll attack the big question straight up by using the exact same setups except for the AMD/Intel core components. And we're going to chart the performance differences in many different scenarios, at stock and overclocked CPU speeds, in single and dual graphics card configurations, and at different resolutions. Now this is gonna be very, very hot and interesting. Test System Components Before we move to the testing, let's talk about Test System Specifications: how to pick parts and compare gaming performance between AMD and Intel? Before choosing components for the test system, we would like you to point out some disparities that are normally encountered when comparing AMD Phenom II to the Intel Core i7. In other words, there must obviously be an attempt to keep the test systems as closely matched as possible, either in terms of money spent or performance capabilities because they are not always the same and sometimes there can be a great misinterpretation and that which as happened with many earlier reviews. So we'll work to keep things balanced between both criteria and both systems as best as possible. Obviously, there are major differences since we're dealing with AMD vs Intel, and it is impossible to take every thing into account and say that let it be the same by definition. This, however, is probably the biggest point of contention since there are many variables of choice of processor, motherboard, and memory, the three core components that will differ between the test systems. Apart from system specs, there also differ in their price range as well, now that makes it even more harder to compare the components as all goes to one thing thats value for our money. We know that gaming performances depends heavily on GPU capabilities but thats not our topic of discussion. We also do know that memory timings will not make any significant differences in the overall test results. Similarly, we know that the performance differences for motherboards are also negligible. As a result, we'll be using motherboards that are comparable in terms of ability and performance levels for each respective platform. Now that leaves the processor. As expected here comes the most controversial part of this exercise, and indeed the entire motive behind the article. Now theres a common belief among the people that if you are heavily into CPU-intensive tasks such as animations, modelling and rendering, mathematical analysis, and so forth, it is recommended that Core i7 is best suited for such type of jobs for its sheer CPU performance. However, the vast majority of consumers (by vast majority we mean gamers and particularly hardcore gamers) do not engage in much workstation-type tasks, if any at all, are not bound enough to spend larger ammounts of money to justify their purchase in the CPU, they can save the remaining funds to get themselves a good GPU of that time. Now, here comes AMD as a life saver. Simply put, a Core i7 will not let you browse faster, play your MP3's better, make Facebook run better, Twitter any faster, or type your school reports any quicker. Both a Quad Core i7 and AMD Phenom II each will easily handle those tasks, plus others as well, in a daily use environment, but sometimes its the cost that also matters, we must accept that "affordable" is important, but even more so is "performance for money". I mean we are not here to discuss whether Quad Core i7 and AMD Phenom II can handle your daily uses but we are here to discuss about the gaming needs that we want to be delivered by a hardware. So the question then becomes, "Which Intel and AMD CPU to compare?". As, we are going to compare similarly-capable systems, including overclocking to an extent. Therefore, we decided to use an Intel Core i7 920, which is by far the most popular Core i7 chip, as well as the most affordable, not to mention it's a great overclocker. On the AMD side of things, we have a Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. Now let me tell you this beforehand, there are cheaper options out there that also overclock to the level of a 955. However, there are two considerations: first, we mentioned "similar" values for money, and the Phenom II X4 955 most closely approximates the Core i7 920 in terms of price, so we went with the 955 in order to keep the value approximately equal in terms of price and performance. Secondly, we anticipated some outcry that AMD parts would be cheaper which would somehow translated to an unfair comparison. So, we want to tackle it head-on and keep things as closely matched as possible and avoid any perception of an unfair comparison. Ofcourse, we're performance nuts, but we're also real-world consumers with our own budgets as well, so we are very mindful of cost, especially during tough economic times(u know what i mean). Simply put, we're going to test each major configuration combination and see what happens in a gaming scenario, and make some (hopefully) clear observations and (maybe) to some extent blunt conclusions. Lastly, we want you to keep in mind this is not an article about overclocking, though overclocking is involved; but overall it is a discussion of the performance value offered for gaming systems between AMD and Intel. We are well aware of both the Phenom II and Core i7's overclocking abilities. Also, there is no point in pushing either CPU past 4.0GHz when that's not necessary for gaming nor analysis, nor is it realistic for what most gamers would do anyways. Test System In order to adequately explore the gaming performance differences between the Phenom II and Core i7, we decided to run 4 basic configurations for each game, and each of those at 3 different resolutions. That would be a more than sufficient sample size to address our major questions and gamer's situations, and certainly enough to provide the basis for some observations and conclusions. The test system is designed to approximate what both a mainstream and more hardcore gamer might use (or similar level) for their setup. Sure, the sky's the limit but we need to be "reasonable" for testing purposes. The point here is not to assemble the most latest and advanced gaming system on the planet, and since we're looking at CPU performance as it relates to gaming (and its resulting value), our test systems include the same system components except the core CPU, motherboard, and memory as previously discussed. Below is our AMD Phenom II test system configuration: hw001_img1.jpg Source: PureOverClock Below is our Intel Core i7 test system configuration: hw001_img2.jpg Source: PureOverClock The testing included the following software: 3DMark Vantage FurMark Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. Left 4 Dead Crysis: Warhead Call of Duty: World at War The Gaming tests were run at 1280x1024, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200 resolutions, which reflect the most popular gaming resolutions used today. They also represent approximately one, two, and three megapixels, which will give a good indication of performance scaling as we move up, both in terms of CPU and GPU performance. 3DMark Vantage 3DMark Vantage is the successor to 3DMark06, now we know that its a synthetic benchmark that doesn't necessarily translate to real world gaming results, but it does push any system farther than before and even the most advanced system can struggle to produce high framerates in some of the tests. It can only be used exclusively in DX10, so Windows Vista must be the Operating System of choice in order to include this benchmark. hw001_img3.jpg Source: PureOverClock Here we see that the Core i7 system is ahead by a few percent at stock speed and a single GPU, but increases its lead slightly when overclocked. There is a considerable difference, however, when Crossfire is enabled, as the Core i7 stretches the gap. FurMark FurMark is a very intensive OpenGL benchmarking application that uses Fur rendering algorithms to measure the performance of the graphics card. Fur rendering is especially adapted to overheat the GPU and that's why FurMark is also a perfect stability and stress test tool (also called GPU burner) for the graphics card. It scales excellently with Crossfire and is primarily affected by GPU performance but the main reason for including Furmark is that we want to see if there is a signficant difference between CPU performance thats affecting the overall framerates. hw001_img4.jpg Source: PureOverClock In FurMark, we can see the Phenom II pulled ahead by a slight framerates at stock speeds with one graphics card, and in fact a dead heat tie when Crossfire is enabled. When overclocked, the Phenom maintains a lead in both single and dual card configurations, though the difference is very minor. So we have seen the comparison between two CPUs, with benchmarking applications and it seems both have performed well with Core i7 gaining upper hand in 3dMark Vantage and Phenom II leading in FurMark. So, let's move onto the gaming results now which is the main thrust of this article. Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X is an air combat flight game developed by Ubisoft Romania and published by Ubisoft for Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X uses a new high resolution image program. H.A.W.X uses GeoEye's commercial Earth-imaging IKONOS satellite system. The H.A.W.X development team worked closely with GeoEye so that satellite images could be used in the game's nineteen-level environment. Its a game that puts you in the pilot's seat, commanding a small squadron to fight international terrorists. More arcade-style than a simulator, the engine runs on DX10 and features very nice ambient lighting, shadows, volumetric fog, god-rays, and ambient occlusion which attempts to replicate how light radiates and bounces against objects in real life. For this test, antialiasing was set to 8x, anisotropic filtering to 16x, and all lighting and texture settings were set to the highest level possible. hw001_img5.jpg hw001_img6.jpg hw001_img7.jpg hw001_img8.jpg hw001_img9.jpg Source: PureOverClock At stock CPU speeds, the single card configuration yields almost identical results with Core i7 slightly leading with 2fps in higher resolutions. But when we looks on the statistics of stock CPUs with CrossFire stats clearly favours the Core i7 system. However, when overclocked, that gain is lost and the Phenom II catches up, resulting in virtually identical results. Left 4 Dead Left 4 Dead is a cooperative, survival-based, first-person shooter video game. It was developed by Turtle Rock Studios, which was purchased by Valve Corporation during development. The game uses Valve's proprietary Source engine, and is available for Windows and the Xbox 360. There isn't much of a storyline but the action is non-stop and intense. Based on the latest version of Valve's Source engine, additional improvements have been added such as physics-based animation and multi-core processor suport. Atmospheric lighting, self-casting shadows, and volumetric smoke and fog effects have drastically improved the look of the Source engine. Antialiasing is set to 8x, anisotropic filtering to 16x, and all lighting and texture settings are set to the highest level possible. hw001_img10.jpg hw001_img11.jpg hw001_img12.jpg hw001_img13.jpg Source: PureOverClock Left 4 Dead framerates are very high overall, and what we can see is that the Core i7 clearly leads ahead, but it shows the greatest improvement when overclocked in Crossfire configuration. Crysis: Warhead Crysis Warhead is a science fiction first-person shooter computer game developed by Hungarian studio Crytek Budapest and published by Electronic Arts. Crysis Warhead is a standalone game and does not need Crysis installed to play, but it is inexplicably intertwined, as you now play the game as Sergeant Michael "Psycho" Sykes, venturing on missions in other parts of the island, apparently working parallel to the missions in the original. An interesting concept, but what is even better here is that Warhead features an updated version of the CryEngine 2 game engine. The updated game engine has been further optimized and performs better than the original Crysis on hardware, though is it still capable of bringing a graphics card to its knees if you turn up the eye candy and enable antialiasing. hw001_img14.jpg hw001_img15.jpg hw001_img16.jpg hw001_img17.jpg Source: PureOverClock Crysis: Warhead is particularly interesting, as the single card configuration results in essentially a tie both at stock and overclocked speeds. But when Crossfire is enabled, the Phenom II lags behind slightly by a couple frames per second. Call of Duty: World at War Call of Duty: World at War is the “successor” to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and takes you back to World War II through the Pacific and Russian campaigns. Based on the CoD4 proprietary engine, the game is shader-intensive and features beautiful DX9 graphics, striking lighting and contrasts, dynamic shadows, and fast-paced action. This game has seen some some engine optimizations, but can still push a system when the graphics settings are cranked up. In this game, antialiasing is set to 4x, anisotropic filtering to 16x, and all lighting and texture settings are set to the highest level possible. hw001_img18.jpg hw001_img19.jpg hw001_img20.jpg hw001_img21.jpg Source: PureOverClock With Call of Duty: World at War we saw an interesting result: at stock speeds, Core i7 clearly took the lead both in single and dual card configurations. However, when overclocked, the Phenom II pulls ahead, and most signficantly at higher resolutions where the gaps widens. This was opposite from what we've seen in the tests so far. Analysis & Comparison Now thats was certainly interesting. The objective results which we obtained so far show that the Core i7 system tends to post higher raw performance numbers than the Phenom II. Although it seems that there are some differences depending if you are running dual cards in Crossfire or not. The differences may be minor overall but what we have analysed that Core i7 outperformed Phenom II in majority of cases. Now, it is imperative to remember the objective of the article here, that performance differences are surely there and clearly visible to us, but how much do those improvements costs? Here we want to analyse this comparison in two respects Performance and Affordabilty. If we compare with respect to performance Core i7 has really shown its ability to outperform Phenom II although the results may vary in case of dual card configuration and whether Crossfire is enabled or not. But if we analyse the other side of possibilities, thats affordability ofcourse we can take into account the performance costs. It is very well known that Phenom II system components will cost less as compared to Core i7 system components. So, according to us it would be better to leave this issue on the customer and let him decide his priorities regarding performance and affordability. Let's get to main objective of this article, thats Gaming Performance Comparison, if we examine the performance differences between the AMD Phenom II and Intel Core i7. First, let's look at the absolute gaming results in terms of percentage differences for each system at stock CPU speeds. hw001_img22.jpg Source: PureOverClock Here we see that the Core i7 does indeed post better performance on average overall. At stock speeds in single GPU configuration however, it's almost a toss-up. The differences may be negligible, with a few exceptions where Crossfire really only shows an improvement in Vantage, H.A.W.X., and Crysis: Warhead. We should keep in mind that these are total results for all resolutions combined, so check the individual results to find the actual differences for each setup. Now let's take look when each system is overclocked. hw001_img23.jpg Source: PureOverClock Here we see a distinctly different trend, with the Phenom II system gaining considerable ground overall, with the lone exception being 3DMark Vantage. The Crossfire differences are now reduced, and in single GPU configuration, the Phenom II in fact overtakes the Core i7. This is very interesting because popular opinion in our experience has been that people have tended to believe that an overclocked Core i7 simply thrashes a Phenom II. The facts, though, do not support such claims. Now, we must look at what is perhaps the most critical indicator of all: gaming performance. As we've just seen, the Core i7 posts some performance increases over the Phenom II system at stock settings, but loses much ground when each are overclocked. Conclusion Being such a hot topic where two major CPU brands battle it out, we weren't quite sure what to expect. We've seen both the Phenom II and Core i7 up close and personal, and have a healthy respect for each platform. However, we are performance nuts around here and pride ourselves as overclocking enthusiasts that try to extract maximum performance from our systems, regardless of platform. And we have been suitably impressed by the overclocking prowess of the Core i7 lineup, as have many other enthusiasts the world over. But we also know that very few people are also able to take advantage of much of those increases in real world tasks that can truly harness that power to a great degree. We've seen the pendulum swing from Intel to AMD, and back and forth, and as gamers, we had assumed that the strengths of the Core i7 platform would prove too much for a Phenom II to overcome in terms of gaming performance. Now there can be two conclusions that we can draw from this comparison and surely they are for different consumers as well that is for a hardcore gamer who is a performance junkie or a gamer who loves to calculate and manipulate his investments. Firstly, let us see through a performance junkie's viewpoint, if you are performance nuts and you can spend for your performance desires then there is no need to think any further, Core i7 is what you need! Don't think about any other options. Secondly, if you want affordability and performance both together. Phenom II will be best for you, as it will cost you lesser than the Core i7 system and maybe you can use the saved cash for some good use by buying a dual graphics card with CrossFire enabled. Finally, it is fact that a Core i7 gaming rig will give you better overall performance in terms of absolute numbers and framerates; the difference isn't much, but it does exist. It is also fact that such a system will cost considerably more money as well for what is essentially almost the same performance. As we said at the outset, passion can be a good thing when harnessed. And in this instance, using gaming performance presented by Core i7 setup will surely harness your passion as a performance junkie but using the gaming value(performance + affordability) presented by an AMD Phenom II setup can effectively let gamers harness additional graphics horsepower for their hard-earned money. THE CHOICE IS FINALLY YOURS!!!