Intel Q8200 or Phenom II x4?

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

On a side note, I was comparing my 3ghz overclock to a Phenom X4 955BE on SPUF and it's comparable in benchmarks to the 955 @ 3.7ghz.

I don't believe that. Post some benchmarks to support it.

LOL, we have an Intel fanboy in our midst.

CPU Mark

Phenom X4 955 @ 3.6ghz= 4755
http://i303.photobucket.com/al...X4955OCedto3616MHZ.png

Phenom X4 955 @ 3.7ghz = 4880
http://i303.photobucket.com/al...X4955OCedto3716MHZ.png

My Q8200 @ 3003mhz = 4854
http://i290.photobucket.com/al.../Scholzpdx/CPUMARK.jpg

Don't call me a fanboy. You wouldn't say that if you knew EVERY dektop besides my gaming computer is K8 based. From my Athlon X2 4200+ to my Athlon 3500+ and my retired 4000+, I'm am not loyal to a brand. Its about what is the best performance for the $$. K8 was it back in the day by a mile. And I even remember i still had my P4 2.8C Northwood as my school PC at the time.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

On a side note, I was comparing my 3ghz overclock to a Phenom X4 955BE on SPUF and it's comparable in benchmarks to the 955 @ 3.7ghz.

I don't believe that. Post some benchmarks to support it.

LOL, we have an Intel fanboy in our midst.

CPU Mark

Phenom X4 955 @ 3.6ghz= 4755
http://i303.photobucket.com/al...X4955OCedto3616MHZ.png

Phenom X4 955 @ 3.7ghz = 4880
http://i303.photobucket.com/al...X4955OCedto3716MHZ.png

My Q8200 @ 3003mhz = 4854
http://i290.photobucket.com/al.../Scholzpdx/CPUMARK.jpg

Don't call me a fanboy. You wouldn't say that if you knew EVERY dektop besides my gaming computer is K8 based. From my Athlon X2 4200+ to my Athlon 3500+ and my retired 4000+, I'm am not loyal to a brand. Its about what is the best performance for the $$. K8 was it back in the day by a mile. And I even remember i still had my P4 2.8C Northwood as my school PC at the time.

hmmm So only one benchmark hey?

Lets all forget about the Phenom 2 and go out and buy q8200's :disgust:

 

[richierich1212]

CPU Mark?? lol. Scholz, in that screenshot it says your Q8200 is @ 2.574GHz. What other benchmarks have you ran besides CPU Mark? Everest?? 3DMark?

 

[error8]

Oh give me a break with useless synthetic benchmarks. Play some games to see that a PII at 3.7 ghz is faster then your 3 ghz Q8200.
This is the same like 3dmark 2006, where a 4870 scores lower then an 8800 GT, even though it's faster. So only judging by the 3dmark score, we can draw the conclusion that 4870 is slower then 8800 GT? No, we can't, because it's faster in every game.

Looking at these benchies it's easy to see that a PII will be always faster then a Q8200 if the frequency difference is 700 mhz for the PII. It's only 340 mhz here for the PII and it's beating q8400 in almost every game tested.

 

[richierich1212]

Where can I download this program, I want to run me some CPUMark. Also, the OP said he's mostly using it for gaming, and that's where PhII processors excel, especially for their price.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: error8

I don't believe that. Post some benchmarks to support it.

Originally posted by: error8
Oh give me a break with useless synthetic benchmarks. Play some games to see that a PII at 3.7 ghz is faster then your 3 ghz Q8200.
This is the same like 3dmark 2006, where a 4870 scores lower then an 8800 GT, even though it's faster. So only judging by the 3dmark score, we can draw the conclusion that 4870 is slower then 8800 GT? No, we can't, because it's faster in every game.

Looking at these benchies it's easy to see that a PII will be always faster then a Q8200 if the frequency difference is 700 mhz for the PII. It's only 340 mhz here for the PII and it's beating q8400 in almost every game tested.

I like how i said in benchmarks it is comparable, you ask for them, then blast me for it being true. CPU MARK is a combination of multiple benchmarks making it a very well rounded benchmark. Also, I get what you are saying, but video cards are nearly a whole different ballpark then CPU's.

I'm saying that it is quite comparable. If you can find a benchmark that you want to compare at 3.6-3.7ghz, I'd be glad to compare findings. Also, overclocking brings in different results. Kind of like how an E2160 @ 3ghz is actually FASTER then an E6600 @ 3ghz in most applications.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: richierich1212
CPU Mark?? lol. Scholz, in that screenshot it says your Q8200 is @ 2.574GHz. What other benchmarks have you ran besides CPU Mark? Everest?? 3DMark?

Intel Speedstep is in effect at that time. Look at my FSB (429 at the time) and multiply it by 7. 3003mhz.

CPU Mark http://www.passmark.com/index.html

 

[richierich1212]

Ok so I've ran this benchmark and I'm seriously thinking it's flawed towards AMD processors. Here are my test results: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7695/passmark.jpg

The integer math score is really low. Even the compression score. And I like to run my processor @ 3.4GHz for voltage and temp reasons, since anything higher takes a lot more voltage.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

I'm saying that it is quite comparable. If you can find a benchmark that you want to compare at 3.6-3.7ghz, I'd be glad to compare findings.

I can't find an exact Q8200 at 3ghz versus a PII at 3.7 ghz, but I linked you something similar, where the difference is of only 340 mhz. It's easy to double that frequency and imagine/calculate the performance. Now, Q8200 at 3.0 ghz will probably win in CPU mark, but it will surely loose in every game in front of the PII at 3.7 ghz.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

On a side note, I was comparing my 3ghz overclock to a Phenom X4 955BE on SPUF and it's comparable in benchmarks to the 955 @ 3.7ghz.

I don't believe that. Post some benchmarks to support it.

LOL, we have an Intel fanboy in our midst.

CPU Mark

Phenom X4 955 @ 3.6ghz= 4755
http://i303.photobucket.com/al...X4955OCedto3616MHZ.png

Phenom X4 955 @ 3.7ghz = 4880
http://i303.photobucket.com/al...X4955OCedto3716MHZ.png

My Q8200 @ 3003mhz = 4854
http://i290.photobucket.com/al.../Scholzpdx/CPUMARK.jpg

Don't call me a fanboy. You wouldn't say that if you knew EVERY dektop besides my gaming computer is K8 based. From my Athlon X2 4200+ to my Athlon 3500+ and my retired 4000+, I'm am not loyal to a brand. Its about what is the best performance for the $$. K8 was it back in the day by a mile. And I even remember i still had my P4 2.8C Northwood as my school PC at the time.

hmmm So only one benchmark hey?

Lets all forget about the Phenom 2 and go out and buy q8200's :disgust:

Well my bad for not having the money for a Phenom 2 processor. It typically takes two people to compare results.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: richierich1212
Ok so I've ran this benchmark and I'm seriously thinking it's flawed towards AMD processors. Here are my test results: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7695/passmark.jpg

The integer math score is really low. Even the compression score. And I like to run my processor @ 3.4GHz for voltage and temp reasons, since anything higher takes a lot more voltage.

Try the NuclearMC benchmark. It has tons of benches put together.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...key=y&keyword1=nuclear

The link is in the first post in the topic and is in russian btw..

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: richierich1212
Ok so I've ran this benchmark and I'm seriously thinking it's flawed towards AMD processors. Here are my test results: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7695/passmark.jpg

The integer math score is really low. Even the compression score. And I like to run my processor @ 3.4GHz for voltage and temp reasons, since anything higher takes a lot more voltage.

It's a known situation that intel cpus score better in synthetic benchmarks. This is what intel did back in 2005 to have something to show to the world, to convince people to buy their pathetic dual cores over the better performing X2s. And in synthetic they were wining, but in real life situations they were loosing on all fronts.

 

[richierich1212]

Another run @ 3.7GHz

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: richierich1212
Ok so I've ran this benchmark and I'm seriously thinking it's flawed towards AMD processors. Here are my test results: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7695/passmark.jpg

The integer math score is really low. Even the compression score. And I like to run my processor @ 3.4GHz for voltage and temp reasons, since anything higher takes a lot more voltage.

It's a known situation that intel cpus score better in synthetic benchmarks. This is what intel did back in 2005 to have something to show to the world, to convince people to buy their pathetic dual cores over the better performing X2s. And in synthetic they were wining, but in real life situations they were loosing on all fronts.

It was my impression that in 2005 all we had were Pentium D's which severely lost in benchmarks. They had higher clock speeds, but never really jumped out on benchmarks. Later (in 2006 or so) the Core and Core2 processors that proceeded were equal if not better than AMD's K8 Architecture.

 

[richierich1212]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: richierich1212
Ok so I've ran this benchmark and I'm seriously thinking it's flawed towards AMD processors. Here are my test results: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7695/passmark.jpg

The integer math score is really low. Even the compression score. And I like to run my processor @ 3.4GHz for voltage and temp reasons, since anything higher takes a lot more voltage.

Try the NuclearMC benchmark. It has tons of benches put together.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...key=y&keyword1=nuclear

The link is in the first post in the topic and is in russian btw..

Got 15972 @ 3.7GHz

 

[richierich1212]

Scholzpdx, run the Street Fighter IV benchmark here and tell me what you get

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Hmm..

16180 @ 3ghz.

http://i290.photobucket.com/al...holzpdx/Untitled-1.jpg

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: richierich1212
Scholzpdx, run the Street Fighter IV benchmark here and tell me what you get

I'm downloading it now. I'll post the screen when i get it going. Doesn't it stress your video card as well?

 

[richierich1212]

Yes it stresses video card as well. But we have the same video card and resolution.
Post screenshot of test results (I didn't know you could screenshot in this game). You have to hit save (x) after the benchmark finishes. I ran @ 1680x1050, Anti-Aliasing 8x, everything at highest settings except default textures, motion blur and ink were set to off

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8854/sfivh.jpg

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

It was my impression that in 2005 all we had were Pentium D's which severely lost in benchmarks. They had higher clock speeds, but never really jumped out on benchmarks. Later (in 2006 or so) the Core and Core2 processors that proceeded were equal if not better than AMD's K8 Architecture.

It might be true. Maybe I'm confusing Pentium D period with the start of the Athlon64 era. Anyway, sometime ago I know for sure that Intel won synthetics over AMD, but lost in games.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

It was my impression that in 2005 all we had were Pentium D's which severely lost in benchmarks. They had higher clock speeds, but never really jumped out on benchmarks. Later (in 2006 or so) the Core and Core2 processors that proceeded were equal if not better than AMD's K8 Architecture.

It might be true. Maybe I'm confusing Pentium D period with the start of the Athlon64 era. Anyway, sometime ago I know for sure that Intel won synthetics over AMD, but lost in games.

Maybe it was how they boasted ridiculously high clock speeds and how it didn't do shit for gaming.

Maybe. Lol.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

SCORE: 7588
AVERAGE: 74.44FPS
OS: Windows Vista(TM) Ultimate
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz
Memory: 4094MB
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series
Display Setting: 1680x1050 60Hz 8xAA

(c)CAPCOM U.S.A., INC. 2008, 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

http://i290.photobucket.com/al.../Scholzpdx/SFFBNCH.jpg

I had to update my drivers (was at 8.12) because it crashed on the first fight scene each time. This was performed at stock 575/900.

Edit: It is oblivious to overclocked CPU's.

Edit 2: No responses? I guess the benchmarks speak for themselves.

 

[error8]

I got SCORE: 6308
AVERAGE: 59.72FPS
with the system in sig, everything maxed out at 1680X1050, AA 8X. What settings are you using for that score? Because if we aren't using the same settings, the benchmark is useless.

 

[richierich1212]

Yeah i didnt respond because i was sleeping. Anyways, yeah it shows that this game is gpu limited.

 

[richierich1212]

error, check my post above for the settings used