Does AMD have an answer to Core i7?

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Personally, I think AMD is screwed... not really because it's products are so bad, but because of the image they have now. Even if Phenom beats Intel in benches, it's already set so strongly in the minds of people that C2D is better that it doesn't matter. When that link was going around showing the Phenom being as fast to significantly faster in gaming benches at real world resolutions (testing the entire platform as a whole... AM2+ and 775 vs. just trying to isolate only CPU performance) almost everyone here just dismissed it. In the average enthusiast's mind C2D is just not approachable much less beatable by the Phenom.

Its not even about Phenom anymore...early Deneb benches show it still isnt up to Yorkfield. That is going off benchmarks, not "marketing."

Believe me, the majority of the posters on this forum have a hard-on for AMD (see: Video Cards and Graphics section). If and when AMD ever catches back up to Intel, it wont go unnoticed.

They are just too behind right now. By the time they have 45nm figured out, Intel will be gearing up for 32nm.

But like someone else posted, they wont even win the Price/Performance, because with i7 out, they can price the C2Qs to directly compete with Deneb.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

So in reality, big bad Intel (how AMD fanboys like to view them) has actually been much kinder to consumers than AMD.

Very smart of them. I've been preaching this for a while -- even though a company may not have any external competition they're still competing with the installed base of their product.

If your new products are not compelling enough to upgrade then people people won't. That makes for slow growth and lower profits, and you can only offset that by higher margins so much.

We won't know what happens until it happens, but predictions of Intel pulling an AMD once they're at the top may be premature. Unlike AMD Intel is not limited by manufacturing capacity, it's in their best interest to move a lot of product.

 

[Zap]

AMD's answer...

OMGWTFBBQ!

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
it's already set so strongly in the minds of people that C2D is better that it doesn't matter.

You've got a point. For the longest time I was trying to educate people that A64 was better than P4, but it was an uphill battle. Right now, in certain circumstances and price ranges AMD still has a competitive product, but of course as soon as anyone mentions that, you'd get a bunch of "OMG, but Intel overclocks better and you're dumb if you don't overclock."

 

[boomstick360]

Okay people, have any of you personally tested AMD's Phenoms and Intel's Q series side by side?? Most of you not likely.

A little while back I setup identicle setups from AMD and Intel (well identicle as possile anyway) Same gpu, Ram, Equal motherboards as possible, same exact model of PSU, Hard drives, etc..
And 3.0Ghz The amd phenom 9850 BE with stock HT just raised Multi and vcore is Identicle in gaming to a Q9300 at 3.01ghz @ 430 FSB x 7 multi at 1600 by 1200 resolutions with the settings cranked, and even on 1280 by 1024 where it is alittle more CPU bound than GPU with the in game settings at the Highest possible they are equal. Only at low resolutions from 1152 by 864 and below the real differences come out. The lower the resolution or the quality the Q9300 squeezes ahead by a few measley frams per second but who wants to game like that?? Games are more GPU bound right now.

Aside from that they both had there ups and downs but they perform side by side at the same clock frequencies for the most part, I never fiddled with the phenom enough to just get the HTT bus higher instead of just raising the multiplier and then there would deffinitely be a performance increase from the Q9300.

These are just my findings, all tests were done the same exact way on both of the systems and everything, i surprized myself because of what i have heard about intel beating the poo out of AMD.. I guess you have to experience things for yourself to find out what is really real. I've read lots of CPU reviews on websites and i have gotten way way different results on my systems, I once read a GTX 260 review that had an intel qx9770 with 2gb of ddr3 1333 and a raptor HD that scored 126 fps with the exact same saettings at 1280 by 1024 as i did but the system i was using at the time had an intel pentium e 2180 at 3.02ghz @ 301 FSB ona cheapo asrock mobo , 2gb of mushkin ddr2 800 running at 450mhz (225 DDR cpuz verified) with 3-3-3-6 timings and an xfx 8800gts 512 g92 at stock clocks but it scored 185 fps, what do you call that???? hmm?? I sold that card to my friend and his setup is an amd 5200+ 65 watt edition at 2.808ghz , 4gb ddr2 800, same card at stock settings, some asus 480x crossfire motherboard scored 190 fps on the source stress test, same exact test as the one on trusted reviews. Seriously how wack is that??? something was wrong there.


here is the test setup on that review

http://www.trustedreviews.com/...dia-GeForce-GTX-260/p4

and here is the counterstrike source review

http://www.trustedreviews.com/...dia-GeForce-GTX-260/p9

 

[boomstick360]

I even found a madshrimps review that was very close to what i did which has very very similar results.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?acti...tpage=3426&articID=809

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: boomstick360
Okay people, have any of you personally tested AMD's Phenoms and Intel's Q series side by side?? Most of you not likely.

A little while back I setup identicle setups from AMD and Intel (well identicle as possile anyway) Same gpu, Ram, Equal motherboards as possible, same exact model of PSU, Hard drives, etc..
And 3.0Ghz The amd phenom 9850 BE with stock HT just raised Multi and vcore is Identicle in gaming to a Q9300 at 3.01ghz @ 430 FSB x 7 multi at 1600 by 1200 resolutions with the settings cranked, and even on 1280 by 1024 where it is alittle more CPU bound than GPU with the in game settings at the Highest possible they are equal. Only at low resolutions from 1152 by 864 and below the real differences come out. The lower the resolution or the quality the Q9300 squeezes ahead by a few measley frams per second but who wants to game like that?? Games are more GPU bound right now.

I don't know what games you tested and how they were tested (maybe they were all GPU bound?), but heres a direct Q9300 to 9850BE comparison from Extremetech, the Q9300 is still faster at high res + details:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2282402,00.asp

 

[boomstick360]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: boomstick360
Okay people, have any of you personally tested AMD's Phenoms and Intel's Q series side by side?? Most of you not likely.

A little while back I setup identicle setups from AMD and Intel (well identicle as possile anyway) Same gpu, Ram, Equal motherboards as possible, same exact model of PSU, Hard drives, etc..
And 3.0Ghz The amd phenom 9850 BE with stock HT just raised Multi and vcore is Identicle in gaming to a Q9300 at 3.01ghz @ 430 FSB x 7 multi at 1600 by 1200 resolutions with the settings cranked, and even on 1280 by 1024 where it is alittle more CPU bound than GPU with the in game settings at the Highest possible they are equal. Only at low resolutions from 1152 by 864 and below the real differences come out. The lower the resolution or the quality the Q9300 squeezes ahead by a few measley frams per second but who wants to game like that?? Games are more GPU bound right now.

I don't know what games you tested and how they were tested (maybe they were all GPU bound?), but heres a direct Q9300 to 9850BE comparison from Extremetech, the Q9300 is still faster at high res + details:
http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,2845,2282402,00.asp

Yeah, i said the same thing to my self, I used Crysis, Hl2 episode 2, Prey, CSS, COD4, COH, and World in conflict. The game that was more so effected by either CPU was COD4 and world in conflict and both favored the Q9300, and i took at look at extreme tech review and yeah in my words are very close, they trade off spots in different games but what i am really trying to get at is that AMD's quad cores aren't as bad and slow as people are making them sound, each cpu differs from different games and apps, but in the end the performance is very close, and the AMD is cheaper.

 

[Roy2001]

It's simple. Just post some silulated benchmarks of non-existing Denab/Shanghai and claim it beats Nehalem by a 40% margin. This has been done and people are easily forgetting and will accept the new hype again.

But wait, what AMD has in hand now except crying to public, and make hypes?

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: boomstick360
Yeah, i said the same thing to my self, I used Crysis, Hl2 episode 2, Prey, CSS, COD4, COH, and World in conflict. The game that was more so effected by either CPU was COD4 and world in conflict and both favored the Q9300, and i took at look at extreme tech review and yeah in my words are very close, they trade off spots in different games but what i am really trying to get at is that AMD's quad cores aren't as bad and slow as people are making them sound, each cpu differs from different games and apps, but in the end the performance is very close, and the AMD is cheaper.

Nobody is saying Phenom is that bad, its just simply not as good as Core 2. Thus, when people have to make a decision, they usually opt for the better choice, which in most cases is Core 2. Somehow this seems to annoy Slowspyder who is convinced there is some sort of conspiracy/coverup against Phenom from enthusiasts, and this is simply not the case. We're just calling it as we see it.

AMD isn't really cheaper either (well the 9850BE is cheaper than the Q9300, but its a bit slower too) since the Q6600 is $190 and can be be overclocked to 3.4 - 3.6GHz on air cooling consistently.

Even comparing stock performance a Q6600 generally beats (albeit by narrow margins) the more expensive 9850BE ($210) and matches the 9950BE ($235). It also comes with a HSF as standard unlike the Phenom BEs, though this is of less importance to overclockers as they're likely to use aftermarket cooling anyway.

 

[boomstick360]

Yes that i true, i forgot about the q6600, that is the real deal right now for overclocking. the 9850 is actually 195$ at the egg though, so :\ and it can be overclocked to 3.2-3.4 with 790gx mobo consistantly from what i have heard from close friends and even in the 3.5's and 3.6's and up but with good cooling, not water just more than a couple fans xD that they jimmy rigged.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
When that link was going around showing the Phenom being as fast to significantly faster in gaming benches at real world resolutions

Did AMDZone do another test? Happen to have a link? BTW, anytime you do a comparison @ GPU-bound resolutions with 16xAA/ultra settings, you're doing a video card comparison, not a CPU comparison.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Nobody is saying Phenom is that bad, its just simply not as good as Core 2. Thus, when people have to make a decision, they usually opt for the better choice, which in most cases is Core 2. Somehow this seems to annoy Slowspyder who is convinced there is some sort of conspiracy/coverup against Phenom from enthusiasts, and this is simply not the case. We're just calling it as we see it.

Yeah, and here's the part I find ironic. The same people who advocate the Phenom because it's "good enough" and slightly cheaper are also often the same ones who advocate not getting a GTX260 because AMD's 4780 is slightly more expensive but also slightly faster.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: boomstick360
Yes that i true, i forgot about the q6600, that is the real deal right now for overclocking. the 9850 is actually 195$ at the egg though, so :\ and it can be overclocked to 3.2-3.4 with 790gx mobo consistantly from what i have heard from close friends and even in the 3.5's and 3.6's and up but with good cooling, not water just more than a couple fans xD that they jimmy rigged.

You're right, I got the OEM / Retail prices mixed up for the 9850BE, (OEM is $15 more expensive?! WTH?). My point still stands though, theres not really any AMD chip that can beat the Q6600 in price, performance, power or overclocking, even with the 790GX/FX mobos enabling higher overclocks on Phenoms. It closes the gap, but it still trails.

We're getting off topic though as this thread is about what AMD has to counter Nehalem aka i7, not Core 2, which will soon be old hat.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
When that link was going around showing the Phenom being as fast to significantly faster in gaming benches at real world resolutions

Did AMDZone do another test? Happen to have a link? BTW, anytime you do a comparison @ GPU-bound resolutions with 16xAA/ultra settings, you're doing a video card comparison, not a CPU comparison.

No, it was overclockers something or another. Both systems used an 8800GT if I remember right, it was something Tatamir (sp?) linked a few weeks back. Will one site's test is hardly conclusive it was something I think all of us in that thread would have liked to see investigated more. I'll see if I can find the link. Also, there are more then just the CPU and GPU to a video card. I understand that testing at 800x600 low isolates the CPU, at least much more so then the GPU. Testing at higher rest/settings is more of a GPU test, and certainly a whole platform test, not just the CPU. That was what was talked somewhat.

Harpoon84, don't get me wrong... overall I'd say the C2D is the better processor. I've said that before and I'll say it again. When you factor everything in, not just gaming benches, but other numbers and the performance you get for the power used, then I think 99% of those 'in the know' would agree that the current Intel line up is overall better. That other 1% owns AMD stock. It's just that on these forums (and I'm sure other enthusiast forums) I think it gets a bit out of whack. I've had people on these forums more or less tell me 'good luck' trying to game on a Phenom, like that is really going to hold me back. I think it's funny when someone asked about a CPU choice for a system for their uncle who will use Hotmail and Quicken, what should they use for this budget build and so many people tell them they need an overclocked E7200, anything less just won't cut it.

 

[z1ggy]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: boomstick360
Yes that i true, i forgot about the q6600, that is the real deal right now for overclocking. the 9850 is actually 195$ at the egg though, so :\ and it can be overclocked to 3.2-3.4 with 790gx mobo consistantly from what i have heard from close friends and even in the 3.5's and 3.6's and up but with good cooling, not water just more than a couple fans xD that they jimmy rigged.

You're right, I got the OEM / Retail prices mixed up for the 9850BE, (OEM is $15 more expensive?! WTH?). My point still stands though, theres not really any AMD chip that can beat the Q6600 in price, performance, power or overclocking, even with the 790GX/FX mobos enabling higher overclocks on Phenoms. It closes the gap, but it still trails.

We're getting off topic though as this thread is about what AMD has to counter Nehalem aka i7, not Core 2, which will soon be old hat.

Here is the AMD roadmap for the next 2 years..Looks like they are only getting to 45nm, but are going DDR3 like intel.

http://www.hardware.info/image...roadmap_server_550.jpg

 

[jojo29]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Yes they have an answer, it's: "Oh Shit"

Nominated for best post of the month in a Core i7 thread.

I second that, that made me almost spew my soda