Computer should work much better than it does.

[haxartus]

This is why Sandybridge absolutely wipes the floor with everything else and why Phenom II's just aren't gaming chips.

I did a quick comparison with the results of i5-2500k and Phenom II 970BE, and the Phenom II did turn out to be 23.6% slower on average from the results here. This is nowhere near wiping the floor and it's actually good since the Phenom II costs about 40% lower than i5-2500k, so the price/performance is higher.

[z1mb0bw4y]

I did a quick comparison with the results of i5-2500k and Phenom II 970BE, and the Phenom II did turn out to be 23.6% slower on average from the results here. This is nowhere near wiping the floor and it's actually good since the Phenom II costs about 40% lower than i5-2500k, so the price/performance is higher.

If you're content with a lesser processor just because the price/performance is higher, then by all means take it, as long as you understand that you're getting a lesser processor. The i3 is superior to almost all of AMD's processors in almost every regard, and the i5 is the best you're going to get on the market for gaming.

AMD is great if you wanna build a $400 budget comp, Sandy Bridge is high end gaming material.

[haxartus]

Yet we're comparing Fallout 3 and Crysis Warhead in those results as well, which results are very close across all chips even right up to the 2500/2600 chips. Regardless of that, the 2100 still performs better than every AMD chip in almost every test, while being almost £30 cheaper. Therefore, price performance of even a lowly i3 is better than AMD's lineup.

The Phenom II is, get this, 6.6% slower than i3-2100. In WoW more like 35% but the Phenom II wins in some games. I'm willing to bet that If I calculate the multithreaded applications results, the Phenom II will turn out to be 30-40% faster.
You're getting a slower CPU because it's 6% faster in games.

[Crushima]

Hi fellow Zenedar player! PM me your char name and I can chat ingame if your on horde.

As for your PC specs, you cpu and graphics card are quite weak. I bought my I7920 two and a half years ago and overclocked it to 3.4Ghz and mine cpu still destroys yours, the AMD chips are simply too slow compared to the I5 or I7 cpu.

If its not too late, maybe you could return the system and get it replaced with a Intel chip and better graphics card.

[Pappahealar]

Lower Shadow Quality to low and Multisampling to 1x.

You won't really notice a difference but gain so much FPS, compared to shadow ultra and 8x

[gmike]

Its probably your OS. I know Dvix can interfere with WoW for some reason. Also try and disable unneeded services in control panel<administrative tools<Services.exe

[yurano]

CPU: AMD PHENOM X6 1090T
GFX card: GTX 550 TI

I'm currently running everything on Ultra and everything on max.
And yes im running at 1920x1080p.

Here's your problem!

1920x1080 + max shaders + max AA and you're wondering why your average gaming computer can't handle it.

Seems like a problem with your expectations.

[Sephiracle]

I did a quick comparison with the results of i5-2500k and Phenom II 970BE, and the Phenom II did turn out to be 23.6% slower on average from the results here. This is nowhere near wiping the floor and it's actually good since the Phenom II costs about 40% lower than i5-2500k, so the price/performance is higher.

You're also comparing this:

Our World of Warcraft benchmark is a manual FRAPS runthrough of a lightly populated server with no other player controlled characters around. The frame rates here are higher than you'd see in a real world scenario, but the relative comparison between CPUs is accurate.

We run on a Radeon HD 5870 at 1680 x 1050. We're using WoW's high quality defaults but with weather intensity turned down all the way.

The reason why WoW is cpu heavy is due to the processing needed because of x amount of players needing to be shown on screen. There's a 42fps difference, just in that situation and when you bring those to a more cpu intensive scenario, i.e. 25man raiding, suddenly that 77.8fps turns into 30 while the 2500k should be around the 60fps range. You'll notice that difference easily compared to 119 to 77.8.

No matter how much you want the AMD processor to be the best in price/performance it won't beat the price/performance of the 2500k and how happy you'll be to play your games and not be CPU bottlenecked.

[haxartus]

No matter how much you want the AMD processor to be the best in price/performance it won't beat the price/performance of the 2500k and how happy you'll be to play your games and not be CPU bottlenecked.

No, math is math. AMD is the best price/performance ratio. The only game that is seriously bottlenecked by AMD is WoW.
Of course, i5-2500k overclocks better. If we take this in to the equation, things get equal in price/performance ratio with i5-2500k, but not with i3-2100. I'm not saying that the Phenom IIs are better, but they are a good choice for the money.
A lot of other computer hardware is 10-20% slower than the competition and I don't see anyone attacking them. WD Caviar hard drives have 10-20% lower access times than anything else, but I constantly see people recommending Samsung, Seagate and Hitachi, which are slower. If you ask someone why, they will tell you something like "Spinpoint F3 is fast enough and it's cheaper". Ok, but so do the Phenom IIs.

[BicycleMafioso]

This is why Sandybridge absolutely wipes the floor with everything else and why Phenom II's just aren't gaming chips.

.. today.

Here's to hoping Bulldozer will even the field! Anyone believe in it though? I thought not. :/

Phenom IIs were perfectly fine pre-Sandy Bridge. Yes, they're lacking now, but so are Core2Quads. Only difference is, intel was bright enough to not be content and actually pushed new products. :P
Ones whom were suitable for gaming, especially. Nom.

---------- Post added 2011-08-15 at 08:32 AM ----------

It's more than enough for WoW. But for other games,(witcher 2, crysis 2, metro) don't expect to run anything higher than medium.

There is no medium in Crysis 2! ;o But my Crysis 2 was totally playable in Very High and almost playable (25-40 avg FPS) at Extreme with my GTX460, whom admittedly is slightly beastier than 6850 while both overclocked.

[haxs101]

Nope thats normal. I run around low 40's with my sig rig in the middle of org. That card isn't that great either. Don't worry about it though. Thats normal for org

[BicycleMafioso]

(stuff)

Question. Why do you call your H70 "hydro water cooling"? Isn't that a bit, you know... redundant?

[haxartus]

Phenom IIs were perfectly fine pre-Sandy Bridge. Yes, they're lacking now, but so are Core2Quads. Only difference is, intel was bright enough to not be content and actually pushed new products. :P

Exactly. It's not that the architecture is particularly bad. It's good enough. It's just the fact that they are 45nm and Sandy Bridge - 32nm. Phenom II x4 has 758 million transistors and Sandy Bridge - 955 million. AMD had the ability to manufacture 32nm Phenom IIIs for several months now. Then why don't they ? Bulldozer. There is no reason to invest money in the old architecture when a new one is in the way.