e8400 vs. phenom vs. conroe

[taltamir]

It is mainly an issue of sttuter.
Crysis has serious stutter whenever you hit a checkpoint, it is saving the game and loading data... intensive CPU stuff that causes a serious dip in performance for a few seconds...
A fast enough CPU will eliminate (or mitigate) that allowing your video card to render without interruptions.
And NWN2 level load times are OBSCENE and totally Dependant on CPU speed. (every time you load a level it discards all previous data from ram and decompresses all the new data from a compressed file, its obscene! and I think single threaded too)

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: taltamir
It is mainly an issue of sttuter.
Crysis has serious stutter whenever you hit a checkpoint, it is saving the game and loading data... intensive CPU stuff that causes a serious dip in performance for a few seconds...
A fast enough CPU will eliminate (or mitigate) that allowing your video card to render without interruptions.

Isn't that a Hard drive bottleneck?? Most stutters I've seen in recent games is due to HDD accessing.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: taltamir
funny thing, the chart shows how a wolfdale at 2.4ghz (underclocked) beats the Q6600 (2.4ghz stock) and whoops the phenom at its 2.4ghz...

but the wolfdale @ 3.0ghz costs LESS then the Q6600 2.4ghz, and less then the 2.2ghz phenom... (MUCH less then the 2.4 ghz one).

duh...Its 5-10% faster than the 65 nm cores at the same clock. Who cares that its less than the Q6600, its only got 2 cores...

How many threads are you going to try and troll in to convince everyone its the new coming, and the only cpu to buy ? Its good, but not THAT good...

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Its not about this thread, its about EVERY thread... You are trying to say the Q6600 is obsolete, more exspensive, E8400 is better in gaming, doesn;t have SSE4, so looses in everything...

I for one am sick of hearing that it is the second coming of processors.]

Again, for emphisis , Its good, but not THAT good...

And last but not least... You never take into account more than your little world, or overclocking.... Its not for everyone.

LOL! QFT! Mark

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: taltamir
It is mainly an issue of sttuter.
Crysis has serious stutter whenever you hit a checkpoint, it is saving the game and loading data... intensive CPU stuff that causes a serious dip in performance for a few seconds...
A fast enough CPU will eliminate (or mitigate) that allowing your video card to render without interruptions.

Isn't that a Hard drive bottleneck?? Most stutters I've seen in recent games is due to HDD accessing.

Exactly...But wait, its taltamir,... So he is talking about the E8400, and its the only one fast enough to not stutter ...

 

[Amaroque]

I think that taltamir ordered a 1,000 unit lot of theese things or something...

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Hmm... You guys should learn how to read. On the bar graph, it says Phenom "X2", which I take to mean they disabled two out of the four cores.

 

[Amaroque]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Hmm... You guys should learn how to read. On the bar graph, it says Phenom "X2", which I take to mean they disabled two out of the four cores.

Honestly, nobody really cares a whole lot about Phenom at this point in the game.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Hmm... You guys should learn how to read. On the bar graph, it says Phenom "X2", which I take to mean they disabled two out of the four cores.

Honestly, nobody really cares a whole lot about Phenom at this point in the game.

Exactly. No matter what benchmarks you read, a little ahead or behind, it doesn;t matter when they only OC to 2.6 (a stretch) and anybody can get Q6600 to 3.4, most 3.5. At that point its a slaughter.

If you don't OC, you wouldn't be here.

 

[batmang]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Amaroque

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Hmm... You guys should learn how to read. On the bar graph, it says Phenom "X2", which I take to mean they disabled two out of the four cores.

Honestly, nobody really cares a whole lot about Phenom at this point in the game.

Exactly. No matter what benchmarks you read, a little ahead or behind, it doesn;t matter when they only OC to 2.6 (a stretch) and anybody can get Q6600 to 3.4, most 3.5. At that point its a slaughter.

If you don't OC, you wouldn't be here.

Word.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Hmm... You guys should learn how to read. On the bar graph, it says Phenom "X2", which I take to mean they disabled two out of the four cores.

actually they are just comparing 1 core single thread gaming on each architecture....

phenom vs. 65nm Core 2 vs. 45nm Core 2

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Thanks Russian! Definitely good stuff in that review. I found it interesting that in many benchmarks modeling my typical usage the Phenom 9900 kept up with a 4.4 ghz (!) 8400. Not bad, not bad at all. Looks like I'll be happy as can be if my X3210 hits 8x300 or faster.

The reason why people slam AMD CPU's is that they aren't built for the future as of yet. Right now you can get a 3.0-3.2ghz X2 that will perform like a C2D ~2.4ghz which is the sweet spot of gaming on an affordable budget. It allows you to keep your entire platform and peace of mind you. Past 2.4ghz C2D performance there is pretty much a 3.0ghz threshold. Once you move beyond a 3.0ghz C2D the benefits you get in games is next to nothing. A 3.0ghz 4mb cache C2D is probably the most solid gaming system around. 3.6-3.8 ghz OCs? Waste of time, more specifically the time of life of your CPU.

Unless you do Encoding and Distributed Computing and are serious about it. The extra mhz WILL come in handy. However, for every day applications and games its almost pointless to move over the 3.0ghz threshold. That is why the e21xx and the e43/4500's are spectacular buys. The newer stuff will allow their PC's to compete with the next generations from AMD and Intel because they can OC so well but thats about where their usefulness lies right now. For today is really kinda a waste of money unless you are buying for the future. And lets face it, people babbling on in this thread will probably update the platform when it comes out so OC'ing for OC'ings sake today past 3.0ghz is just epeen.

 

[batmang]

^^^ I agree. I have a all AMD/ATi setup and it plays anything that a similar Intel and NVidia setup would just fine. It may be short 10-15FPS in some games but in the games that actually count to me (Crysis and Company of Heroes) the framerates are about the same. I don't really see the benefit of overclocking the crap out of a machine to get " awesome " 3DMark scores and 5-7fps more in 1900x1200.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: batmang
^^^ I agree. I have a all AMD/ATi setup and it plays anything that a similar Intel and NVidia setup would just fine. It may be short 10-15FPS in some games but in the games that actually count to me (Crysis and Company of Heroes) the framerates are about the same. I don't really see the benefit of overclocking the crap out of a machine to get " awesome " 3DMark scores and 5-7fps more in 1900x1200.

How did you come to such a conclusion? Have you actually compared an overclocked Q6600 system to yours? Mind you, with a single 3870 you will be GPU bottlenecked if you play at 1920x1200, at least in Crysis.

 

[batmang]

I was being sarcastic harpoon84. You put the wrong section in bold btw. As for playing in 1900x1200, I don't. I play in 1440x900 on high. I prefer that resolution for Crysis, much smoother than 1680x1050+. And lets NOT turn this into a Phenom vs. Q6600 thread. I'm so sick of talking/reading about that comparison.

EDIT: Who actually plays Crysis in 1900x1200 with decent graphic settings and actually enjoys it?

EDIT 2: I wish I could play in 1900x1200 without crying!

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: batmang
I was being sarcastic harpoon84. You put the wrong section in bold btw. As for playing in 1900x1200, I don't. I play in 1440x900 on high. I prefer that resolution for Crysis, much smoother than 1680x1050+. And lets NOT turn this into a Phenom vs. Q6600 thread. I'm so sick of talking/reading about that comparison.

EDIT: Who actually plays Crysis in 1900x1200 with decent graphic settings and actually enjoys it?

You were being sarcastic?! Well, let's just say sarcasm doesn't always portray well on Internet forums.

As for who plays Crysis at 1920x1200, those with too much money to burn, generally.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: taltamir
It is mainly an issue of sttuter.
Crysis has serious stutter whenever you hit a checkpoint, it is saving the game and loading data... intensive CPU stuff that causes a serious dip in performance for a few seconds...
A fast enough CPU will eliminate (or mitigate) that allowing your video card to render without interruptions.

Isn't that a Hard drive bottleneck?? Most stutters I've seen in recent games is due to HDD accessing.

Exactly...But wait, its taltamir,... So he is talking about the E8400, and its the only one fast enough to not stutter ...

sure it stutters... but less.
Some stutter is harddrive, some is CPU. I find CPU to be more common.
The Q6600 IS obsolete, its over a year old tech. the Q9XXX comes out on 03-15-08... that would be good for all your quad core needs. and will annihilate the E8400 in any multi threaded application. The Q6600 does not. Its usually slower.

I don't see whats your problem with me calling the fastest dual core CPU on the market the fastest on the market. Do you want me to recommend him an X2 6400 instead? or tell him that he should pay extra for a Q6600 that will be slower most games and slower in most encoding tests, but faster at compiling HL2 levels?

And you can be here without OCing... not everyone wants to go to the trouble of ocing.. and you need to buy more expensive ram/psu/mobo/etc to be able to OC at ALL. so its not a gaurenteed method for everyone person to increase the value of their CPU for free... its a cheap easy method to increase value by buying higher quality accompanying products.

And ofcourse it's in every thread, do you want me to say the E8400 is faster in one thread and slower in another? Its not magically changing its speed on a daily basis. Today its faster, in a month something else will be, in a year the nehalem will be faster... thats life.

Congrats on your OP nomination markfw900... how about you start honoring the (perspective) position by respecting the rule about no personal attacks?

 

[Markfw]

sarcasm meter ?

There was no attack. But I guess I won't even be able to do sarcasm anymore....

Edit: However saying that a one year old quadcore is obsolete, is going a little far, don't you think ? The replacement in that price range isn't even out yet....

 

[taltamir]

The way you say it encourages an entourage of yours to follow your lead with "lol good one markfw he is a moron". Which you then joke with rather then call upon to stop. You souldn't pat on the back for such behavior.
EDIT: And that wasn't sarcasm, it was belittling me rather then actually countering any of my points. I am NOT offended... I just expect more of you. By all means demolish my argument. Sometimes I say stupid things and I am not afraid to admit them. But its wrong to belittle me instead of my argument. (and a clear indication that you can not counter my argument)

You are the one who is making it into the second coming. I just say its the fastest dual core on the market (which it is) and that is the most sensible choice for most people. Sure some cases the Q6600 still wins in overall performance. But I think E8400 is generally a smarter purchase. That or waiting less then a month for the Q9XXX to arrive.

I am taking into account non OC and people who don't live in my own little world. In fact I am PRIMARILY taking them into account. Since:
1. I don't OC.
2. The performances differences I was talking about are at stock, while the E8400 OCes more, due to having only 2 cores the GAIN from said OC is smaller then oceing the quad core... so actually OCing tilts the balance towards the Q6600.
3. I very rarely encode video or use CS3 and the like.. I am only taking into account the benefit SSE4 offers in those for other people... SSE4 offers ZERO benefits to me... I use winrar a lot and for that the Q6600 is faster. Not but much, but is.
Not enough to justify the cost, but enough for me to use one if I had it lying around. SSE4 simply tilts the balance in most quad core centric applications towards the E8400.

Anyways, you don't see me bitching at you for treating the Q6600 as the second comming in every thread.... and you do keep saying its better in every thread that compares the two. That is just your opinion and you are entitled to it, I will argue with your points, not say "I am sick and tired of your fanatic illigical latching unto the Q6600 processor"... which I see from your signature you are using in 5 seperate computers...
I on the other hand use the E8400...

I also flat out say that the Q6600 is better for folding... and I think this is the root of the problem. You are just miffed at me for my thread about the costs of distributed computing. Something you avidly support. It doesn't make me the devil. I am not against medicine and donating. I just think there are more efficient methods of donating. You are more then welcome to donate YOUR way if you enjoy doing it... I don't think that people should be tricked into donating more then they meant to with lies and misinformation.

 

[batmang]

I'm gonna bring this back to the main topic. E8400 vs. Phenom vs. Q6600.

Heres my verdict.

-If you game and don't do anything else you would be stupid not to go with the E8400.
-If you game and do some encoding and whatever else would utilize the four cores, get a friggin Q6600.
-If your a overclocking nut who games, go with the E8400.
-If your a overclocking nut who encodes and will utilize four cores, go with the Q6600.
-If you like AMD and like the idea of the Spider platform and whatever else AMD/ATi have to offer go with the Phenom. If your upgrading your existing AM2 platform its also a good way to go quad core without buying other new hardware.

I chose the Phenom and I love it. Someone else has a E8400 and loves it, and guess what? Someone went with the Q6600 and friggin dry humps the box it came in. Pick what suits your needs. Stop the CPU wars already!

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: batmang
I'm gonna bring this back to the main topic. E8400 vs. Phenom vs. Q6600.

Heres my verdict.

-If you game and don't do anything else you would be stupid not to go with the E8400.
-If you game and do some encoding and whatever else would utilize the four cores, get a friggin Q6600.
-If your a overclocking nut who games, go with the E8400.
-If your a overclocking nut who encodes and will utilize four cores, go with the Q6600.
-If you like AMD and like the idea of the Spider platform and whatever else AMD/ATi have to offer go with the Phenom. If your upgrading your existing AM2 platform its also a good way to go quad core without buying other new hardware.

I chose the Phenom and I love it. Someone else has a E8400 and loves it, and guess what? Someone went with the Q6600 and friggin dry humps the box it came in. Pick what suits your needs. Stop the CPU wars already!

Well said.