e8400 vs. phenom vs. conroe

[Tempered81]

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/69737/

its german, but forrest gump could read a bar graph!

 

[konceptz]

Good find. I would love to see it without any cores disabled at the same Proc speed. Then at stock speeds.

 

[Tempered81]

yeah that graph really just shows you architecture performance of the three. phenom vs. wolfdale vs. conroe clock for clock, core for core.

 

[harpoon84]

Doesn't Crysis take advantage of quad cores? You may see an even bigger performance delta with the C2Q equivalents...

 

[Mavtech]

Sweet news. I have a friend picking one up for me in MD for a real good price. I have been looking for a comparison to my E6600. Looks like the E6600 will be going on my FS thread.

 

[TC777]

The Phenom actually does pretty well in Crysis:

http://www.techspot.com/review...erformance/page10.html

In fact it beats the Intel cpus in quite a few benchmarks when run at the same speed. Or at least its not the awful cpu it gets made out to be. Its biggest problem is that is doesn't overclock much.

 

[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).

 

[Zenoth]

taltamir, buy one of those E8400 like I did and enjoy it like I do and you'll be happy, I think we know by now that you like the new Core revision under the current Wolfdale form. Let's put the apprehension aside and join the practical club.

 

[Markfw]

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...

 

[taltamir]

Yap. Ordered one yesterday...

I am just commenting on the chart.

Oddly enough it contradicts the result from here:
http://www.techspot.com/review...erformance/page10.html

which say that at 3ghz the wolfdale still looses to both phenom and q6600.

So either one of them is wrong, or it depends on the settings used.

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...

Relax a little... I am not trolling anything. this is a thread comparing the three processors and I commented that according the chart provided the e8400 annihilates the other two in crisys... which, btw, I do not beleive is true. the E8400 is better for games.. but thats because most games are single threaded. Crysis is multi threaded so it should have the quads kick the wolf in nads... which is shown to happen in the techspot review.

So one of the two is off... and I am guessing the chart the op presented, the one showing the E8400 dominating in crisys, it the incorrect one.

The E8400 is a really good processor but it isn't the holy grail or anything.

 

[Markfw]

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.

 

[taltamir]

thats the thing, it is for everyone TODAY, in less then a month it is no longer going to be standing alone. I take everything into account. The E6850 had its roles that were different then the q6600, the E8400 obsoletes both, with the E2140 remaining at the low end...
the Q8600 will soon replace the Q6600 and fill roles differing then the E840.
Its not the second coming, its not for everyone, but its pretty much obsoletes most of the high end.

Just like when the 8800GT came out it obsoleted most cards on the market in one fell swoop. Now there are 4 cards worth buying, the 3850, 3870, 8800GT, and 8800GTSv3... and their various ram size derivatives. And if you wait a month more CPUs will come out and again you will have a variety of things worth choosing.

But at the moment the next big thing hit, and its good. Year old technology cannot compare with fresh new stuff.

You are trying so hard to be "neutral" and "balanced" and "conscious of the differing needs of different people" that you are blinding yourself to the fact that sometimes there is something that IS the best all around. Its not gonna last, but for TODAY it is.

And if I WAS trying to tout the E8400 as the second coming, how come I am here calling BS on results showing it whooping the phenom and the Q6600? The one game in existence where it falls behind (and by a significant amount) is suddenly claimed to best played on it... and I am calling BS. its the best chip out right now for every type of person (aside from very budged oriented people, for whom the 2140 is perfect). BUT, this is one test where it should fail. its OTHER games that make it awesome, not crysis.

 

[RussianSensation]

I for one sell computers when I upgrade. I know for a fact in 1.5-2 years I'll either get a higher price for a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz than I would for a 4.5ghz dual core E8400 or i'll be far easier to sell.

For example, back in the days a 2.4ghz Athlon 64 > dual core X2 3800+ 2.0ghz. But that's not true anymore = Bioshock - just 1 example

As more programs start to benefit from multithreading the Quad will have 3.4x4 = 13.6ghz of disposable power vs. 4.5x 2 = 9.0ghz for the E8400. However, today, you can't say a Core 2 Duo 4.5ghz is noticably faster than a Core 2 Duo 3.4ghz unless you are playing at 1024x768. So you are getting faster performance today which you wont feel at the expense of slower performance in the future which you WILL feel.

So I disagree that E8400 made Q6600 obsolete per say. For some people it has, but not for those who keep their system for longer than a year.

 

[Nemesis 1]

All good points . Except the last one. Russian - Anyone really at forums buying Penryns today will be buying Nehalems. Not to break the thought process in this thread. But A dual core Nehalem in 10 months sounds pretty good. 2 cores 4 threads.

So what good will A Nehalem 4 core cpu be . 4 cores 8 threads? None unless Intel needs those cores for other work . YA I know servers will use 8 threads. But what on the desktop.

Point here is today were debating 2core vs. 4core. In 10 months The Dual core looks like the right core to buy. Unless RTRT is as close as Intel says it is.

By the time Qcore Penryns or K10 arrive in numbers. It will only be 7 months till Qcore Nehalem . This is all cool stuff. But change is happening so much faster than were use to seeing . Its throwing us all off. But honestly right now the smart money would go for Dual cores on Penryn and Nehalem . 4 cores or more when RTRT is reality. Until than 2 core nehalems will do the job great . Along with the very short lived 2 core penryns.

 

[MTDEW]

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).

Uhhh....isnt it an e6600 @ 2.4ghz, not a q6600?
LINK

Regardless, im still impressed with the Wolfdales performance over a Conroe at the same speeds/settings.
Add to that the fact that a Wolfdale will easily overclock higher than a Conroe and it makes the Wolfdale VERY attractive. :thumbsup:

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

The first thing I did when I upgraded from my e4400@3Ghz to the e8400@4Ghz was to fire up Crysis and load a saved game immediately after The Core. Previously, running around in the snow on my e4400 at 1680x1050 w/ everything set to medium was akin to a slideshow in a lot of cases, especially once the fighting began. The difference now is massive for me, it's smoother, and in most cases, I can even bump it up to high textures and still have it be playable.

What pisses me off about Crysis is that you have these people who will say, "You only get xxFPS in Crysis? I get xxFPS on high, what's wrong with your PC!" The graph on that page very much shows how variable the framerate in Crysis is depending on the level. While everything ran pretty well for me on the e4400 up to the snow levels, as soon as I hit the snow levels, the game was pretty much unplayable, and the same thing happened in the final area, especially during the final boss battle.

The e8400 seems to alleviate some of those problems for me personally, likely due to 33% more power as well as another 4MB of cache on the CPU, which made me feel a little more future proof than I did before, and makes my 8800GTS look like it still has some life in it .

The e8400 is great at 3GHz stock, but at 4GHz, which has been pretty attainable by all accounts, including my own, it's downright amazing from a performance standpoint.

 

[amenx]

--double post--

 

[amenx]

Originally posted by: tcool93
The Phenom actually does pretty well in Crysis:

http://www.techspot.com/review...erformance/page10.html

In fact it beats the Intel cpus in quite a few benchmarks when run at the same speed. Or at least its not the awful cpu it gets made out to be. Its biggest problem is that is doesn't overclock much.

This conflicts with just about every other CPU benchmarks that I've seen with Crysis. Higher clock C2D duals always beat Quads in games incl Crysis. I think the only game where that wasnt the case was SupCom which was optimized for multi-cores, there may be another game or 2 out there, but not Crysis.

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,2209093,00.asp

 

[Markfw]

The other thing that is always hard to look at, now that OC'ing is so easy with the Intel (as compared to AMD) and the level to which you can OC is much higher, it doesn't tell me what I want to know, which is how will a 2.5 ghz Phenom compare to a 3.5 Q6600 to a 4 ghz E8400 (all normal OC's and easy to reach from what I have seen)

 

[Riverhound777]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
The other thing that is always hard to look at, now that OC'ing is so easy with the Intel (as compared to AMD) and the level to which you can OC is much higher, it doesn't tell me what I want to know, which is how will a 2.5 ghz Phenom compare to a 3.5 Q6600 to a 4 ghz E8400 (all normal OC's and easy to reach from what I have seen)

Well in those circumstances I think it would be pretty obvious who would win at what. The Q6600 and E8400 would annihilate the Phenom at everything. The Q6600 would beat the E8400 at things that use all 4 cores except maybe for things optimized for SSE4, and the E8400 would win the rest.

 

[v8envy]

Yup, Markfw900 nailed it. Typical OC vs typical OC in typical apps. I'd love to see how a 2.5 ghz 9500 phenom compares to a 4ghz 8400, with all cores enabled on the Phenom. Mostly to validate the theories we all have re: how that shootout would go. Quad vs Dual in a same price range CPU comparison.

I think we can all guess what a Xeon 3210 @ 3.2 would look like compared to a 2.5 Phenom (the other same-price comparison.) Mine is on its way, together with a brand new 500 earthwatts and 4 gigs of $3/stick ram. Just need to find a DS4 board and a water block for it -- 3.2 ghz of quad core goodness for under $400, with a bit of luck!

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Yup, Markfw900 nailed it. Typical OC vs typical OC in typical apps. I'd love to see how a 2.5 ghz 9500 phenom compares to a 4ghz 8400, with all cores enabled on the Phenom. Mostly to validate the theories we all have re: how that shootout would go. Quad vs Dual in a same price range CPU comparison.

Here you go - Phenom 2.6ghz vs. 3.0-4.4ghz E8400

 

[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.

 

[Munky]

Who plays games at 800x600? I understand that we're comparing cpu's here, but I'd like to know how much of a difference a cpu makes at settings I actually use, like 1920x1200, high settings. If it turns out that it's all gpu-limited and the cpu makes little difference, then I don't see the point of comparing cpu performance in games at settings nobody uses.

 

[MTDEW]

Who plays games at 800x600? I understand that we're comparing cpu's here, but I'd like to know how much of a difference a cpu makes at settings I actually use, like 1920x1200, high settings. If it turns out that it's all gpu-limited and the cpu makes little difference, then I don't see the point of comparing cpu performance in games at settings nobody uses.

I thought that too, and then i thought that its probably just a couple frames per second.

Then i thought, yeah, but when we get faster video cards then the faster cpu should help widen the gap between systems with the same specs and the faster cpu.

And of course it will depend on the game as usual.

You know how it is, we can never stop buying faster hardware.

Heck i have two e6600 systems here and a Q6600 system that are all over 3ghz and i STILL want a penryn.

You guys on these forums make me do bad things to my bank account constantly....LOL