me i got amd phenom 2 x4 965 and i run all game that i have full speed and sorry for intel fan but when i buy my pc i go see many beachmark amd vs intel and for price intel is less fast in gaming but if you work big application that most people dont use intel is good oh sorry intel good in game when low resolution is on but who still play in 1024 768 the only thing before buy a pc is the usage of it i think
(10-04-2010, 01:12 AM)jontcold Wrote: [ -> ]me i got amd phenom 2 x4 965 and i run all game that i have full speed and sorry for intel fan but when i buy my pc i go see many beachmark amd vs intel and for price intel is less fast in gaming but if you work big application that most people dont use intel is good oh sorry intel good in game when low resolution is on but who still play in 1024 768 the only thing before buy a pc is the usage of it i think
Gaming performance is the same as other performance: Intel wins at it.
AMD even benchmarks their GPUs on Intel platforms because of the speed.
As for RAM, AMD and Intel both do DDR3, but Intel does Triple channel, which offers a massive boost in bandwidth.
i've built and tested many systems over the past year and tried dolphin on all of them. basically, i believe that only >2 core i5 and i7 systems are fast enough to run dolphin at full speed in most instances, due to masses (relatively speaking) of bandwidth in comparison with core 2 and amd systems. anyone with a core 2 or amd system that gets >55fps at all times (that aren't loading or cache clearing) in super mario galaxy or super mario galaxy 2 is welcome to prove me wrong.
http://www.techspot.com/review/193-intel-core-i5-750/page5.html - for core 2 vs nehalem vs stars bandwidth
Quote:As for RAM, AMD and Intel both do DDR3, but Intel does Triple channel, which offers a massive boost in bandwidth.
Intel has a better IMC. That's all I care about. Even if you compare an i5 750 (dual channel) against a phenom II 965 (dual channel) both with ddr3 1333 ram you will see the i5 750 getting about twice the memory bandwidth. This makes sense since with efb to ram memory bandwidth should be a major bottleneck, and the performance improvements seen from core2/phenomII to i3/i5/i7 seem to directly coincide with the memory bandwidth improvement (if the memory bandwidth doubles we tend to see double the performance with efb to ram but very little with efb to texture).
(10-04-2010, 05:37 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:As for RAM, AMD and Intel both do DDR3, but Intel does Triple channel, which offers a massive boost in bandwidth.
Intel has a better IMC. That's all I care about. Even if you compare an i5 750 (dual channel) against a phenom II 965 (dual channel) both with ddr3 1333 ram you will see the i5 750 getting about twice the memory bandwidth. This makes sense since with efb to ram memory bandwidth should be a major bottleneck, and the performance improvements seen from core2/phenomII to i3/i5/i7 seem to directly coincide with the memory bandwidth improvement (if the memory bandwidth doubles we tend to see double the performance with efb to ram but very little with efb to texture).
I don't know all the technical arguments, but I am using the Phenom 965 mentioned by the OP and am having great success. Full speed nearly all the time on all games. It only cost me about $160 too. If you're really intense about ALWAYS getting full speed on everything you play and have the money to satisfy your desire, I'm sure Intel is the best. AMD does a near perfect job for 1/2 the price.
If you are using efb to texture it won't make much of a difference to be honest. But for efb to ram the i3/i5/i7 cpus do a better job. So yes, I'm not saying that phenom II/core 2 are crappy for dolphin, since you can still get fullspeed or close to it in most games. I'm just saying that i3/i5/i7 can be better.
(10-04-2010, 08:34 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]If you are using efb to texture it won't make much of a difference to be honest. But for efb to ram the i3/i5/i7 cpus do a better job. So yes, I'm not saying that phenom II/core 2 are crappy for dolphin, since you can still get fullspeed or close to it in most games. I'm just saying that i3/i5/i7 can be better.
100% agreed. Now whether it's worth the money? That's the question of the hour.
That depends how much money you have. If you have to sell your soul to afford it then you can make do with something else but if you can afford it I would definitely go for it. I think it's worth it because quite frankly an i5 760 setup is usually only $60-70 more than a high end phenom II setup and with efb to ram can achieve nearly double the performance. But if you are willing to use efb to texture then you don't really need it.
(10-04-2010, 08:46 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]That depends how much money you have. If you have to sell your soul to afford it then you can make do with something else but if you can afford it I would definitely go for it. I think it's worth it because quite frankly an i5 760 setup is usually only $60-70 more than a high end phenom II setup and with efb to ram can achieve nearly double the performance. But if you are willing to use efb to texture then you don't really need it.
What is the difference between efb to ram and efb to texture?
Also, since I can get an i5 760 at Microcenter, I've ruled out the PII. I'd be crazy not to spend the little extra and get the i5.
Quote:What is the difference between efb to ram and efb to texture?
EFB to RAM copies the efb as a static object to the system ram while efb to texture copies the efb to vdram as a clear texture. Since textures in the vdram can't be modified by the cpu certain efb effects do not work properly with efb to texture, but efb to texture is much faster since constant read/writes to the system ram to update the efb copy is obviously going to cause a slowdown.
To put it simply
To texture: Much faster but some efb effects don't work
To RAM: Much slower but nearly all efb effects work