• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Phenom 2 (deneb) vs. Core2Quad vs. Corei7

T

Tempered81

Diamond Member
phenom 2 940 @ 3ghz

c2q q9550 @ 2.83ghz

corei7 940 @ 2.93ghz

phenom 9950 @ 2.6ghz

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...=3464965&postcount=459


all 2x/4xAA w/ single gtx280

STALKER CLEAR SKY, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 41.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 41.2

CRYSIS WARHEAD, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 35.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 35.0

DEAD SPACE, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 219.0
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 214.4

FAR CRY 2, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 54.4
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 46.2

WORLD AT WAR, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 48.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 57.3

WORLD IN CONFLICT, 1680x1050

Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 92.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 95.0
Click to expand...
 
Even more interesting is that these benches show Phenom II 940 being competitive with i7 940 in games.

I sense a price war coming.
 
Just like most have been saying, there is no real advantage there, even being clocked slightly higher. I would also like to see how far you can OC the Phenom II on air within AMD voltage spec against a C2Q with a 1.3625V max Vcore. This is getting exciting!


@ masteryoda34: Price war would = :thumbsup:
 
Are these even reputable? the supposed source doesn't have them anymore. I could have made these benchmarks myself using paint in less than an hour while I was stoned. I sure hope they're real though.
 
Originally posted by: TidusZ
Are these even reputable? the supposed source doesn't have them anymore. I could have made these benchmarks myself using paint in less than an hour while I was stoned. I sure hope they're real though.
Click to expand...

No source, so it might not have much to it. But heres hoping it does this well, if not better.
 
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: TidusZ
Are these even reputable? the supposed source doesn't have them anymore. I could have made these benchmarks myself using paint in less than an hour while I was stoned. I sure hope they're real though.
Click to expand...

No source, so it might not have much to it. But heres hoping it does this well, if not better.
Click to expand...

The results looked somewhat erratic to me. Usually you don't see such swings in the benchmark scores when it comes to just the CPU. For the Phenom 2 to dominate in some games, and then lose badly in others, it doesn't make sense to me.
 
Well, we don't know for sure yet, but it looks like Phenom 2 and Corei7 are close in gaming performance. Based on this possibly premature opinion, there is something I just don't understand.

When AMD originally moved the memory controller on-die in the Athlon64 architecture gaming performance showed a big improvement, even before dual core X2.

Intel finally beat that with C2D and no on-die memory controller, how is it when they finally do get the memory controller on-die there doesn't seem to be much if any boost for gaming?

 
Originally posted by: rogue1979
Well, we don't know for sure yet, but it looks like Phenom 2 and Corei7 are close in gaming performance. Based on this possibly premature opinion, there is something I just don't understand.

When AMD originally moved the memory controller on-die in the Athlon64 architecture gaming performance showed a big improvement, even before dual core X2.

Intel finally beat that with C2D and no on-die memory controller, how is it when they finally do get the memory controller on-die there doesn't seem to be much if any boost for gaming?
Click to expand...

It's mostly because the cache structure on Nehalem is much less favorable to games than Penryn, and in many cases that balances out the faster memory access Nehalem gets with the IMC.

With Yorkfield you had 12MB fast L2..... now you have 256KB fast L2 per core, and a much slower 8MB L3. Games really like that large L2 cache.

Meanwhile with A64 AMD actually increased cache sizes, from 512KB in the last Athlon XPs to 1MB in the top of the line A64s.
 
The benches are close enough that price would be my deciding factor if I were buying a quad today... or early next year, rather.
 
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: rogue1979
Well, we don't know for sure yet, but it looks like Phenom 2 and Corei7 are close in gaming performance. Based on this possibly premature opinion, there is something I just don't understand.

When AMD originally moved the memory controller on-die in the Athlon64 architecture gaming performance showed a big improvement, even before dual core X2.

Intel finally beat that with C2D and no on-die memory controller, how is it when they finally do get the memory controller on-die there doesn't seem to be much if any boost for gaming?
Click to expand...

It's mostly because the cache structure on Nehalem is much less favorable to games than Penryn, and in many cases that balances out the faster memory access Nehalem gets with the IMC.

With Yorkfield you had 12MB fast L2..... now you have 256KB fast L2 per core, and a much slower 8MB L3. Games really like that large L2 cache.

Meanwhile with A64 AMD actually increased cache sizes, from 512KB in the last Athlon XPs to 1MB in the top of the line A64s.
Click to expand...

There's that, plus the fact that the memory controller for the C2D paired with its cache was so efficient, that it actually compared favorably to the Athlon 64 in terms of cache latency. In many ways intel didn't even need to move to an on-die memory controller.
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
There's that, plus the fact that the memory controller for the C2D paired with its cache was so efficient, that it actually compared favorably to the Athlon 64 in terms of cache latency. In many ways intel didn't even need to move to an on-die memory controller.
Click to expand...

No, they did, it just wasn't needed on desktop systems yet.
 
WOW this is really good news for AMD if its true. Im amazed, that the phenom 2 can compete so well with the i7, if true of course, this would be why Intel has been shaken of late with all this phenom 2 talk. WOW. :thumbsup:
 
I am curious if this is another shanghai vs whatever comparison. I've seen a bunch of benches compare an i7 system vs a shanghai using low-speed ECC memory and throwing up game benches. I'd see some 100% legit deneb benches and know whether to wait or not.

If it is a shanghai it would be amazing to see what deneb can really do. If not, it's still pretty good numbers.
 
Originally posted by: evilbix
I am curious if this is another shanghai vs whatever comparison. I've seen a bunch of benches compare an i7 system vs a shanghai using low-speed ECC memory and throwing up game benches. I'd see some 100% legit deneb benches and know whether to wait or not.
Click to expand...

It's using DDR3-1333...doesn't say ECC but there aren't many details.
 
These are some great gains. Did you guys notice on World in Conflict, Phenom 2 is 43% faster than the Phenom 9950, while only having a 15% advantage in clock speed. In Far Cry 2 it's 35% faster, World at War 29% faster, Dead Space 25% faster. I guess some games really like the extra L3 cache (and tweaks) on Deneb.
 
I'm not an AMD fanboy, I actually lean towards Intel. But I do remember everyone being as skeptical early Conroe benches as people are skeptical about early Phenom II benches, so I will not make any assumptions and say Phenom II's benches are overly optimistic.
 
Looks like I'm going to buy myself a cheap quad after all, in the beginning of 2009. Price war is the only war I like. 🙂
 
There's only one benchmark where the "deneb" beats penryn (eye-balled & adjusted for clock). So Intel's IPC is still unmatched it seems. If the highest end phenom competes with the q9550 price-wise it could sell well and even enable some profit for AMD in contrast to k10. I'm really not overly optimistic due to the huge die size of deneb, though. Still it's certainly an improvement over K10.
 
Originally posted by: JackyP
There's only one benchmark where the "deneb" beats penryn (eye-balled & adjusted for clock). So Intel's IPC is still unmatched it seems. If the highest end phenom competes with the q9550 price-wise it could sell well and even enable some profit for AMD in contrast to k10. I'm really not overly optimistic due to the huge die size of deneb, though. Still it's certainly an improvement over K10.
Click to expand...

Ummm...the Deneb is reputed to be the same die size as the i7.
Text
 
Looking further into the XtremeSystems thread...

The original source http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=359342

Notice the poster statistics:

Silentjack07
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2

And those 2 posts are in that thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by geckolizard View Post
no source ??
Click to expand...

http://www.expreview.com

the benchmarks had been there for several hours tonight. now i cant find them anymore, do you?
Click to expand...
That's what I call fishy...

Furthermore.... http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...=3466299&postcount=504
This one http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...ng-intel-core-i7-920/7 contradicts with the so-called (fishy/dodgy) "benchmarks" http://www.freeimagehosting.ne...age.php?a4e1257410.jpg

Note its using the same graphics card also, GTX280, and same resolution 1680x1050.
Click to expand...



 
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: JackyP
There's only one benchmark where the "deneb" beats penryn (eye-balled & adjusted for clock). So Intel's IPC is still unmatched it seems. If the highest end phenom competes with the q9550 price-wise it could sell well and even enable some profit for AMD in contrast to k10. I'm really not overly optimistic due to the huge die size of deneb, though. Still it's certainly an improvement over K10.
Click to expand...

Ummm...the Deneb is reputed to be the same die size as the i7.
Text
Click to expand...

Umm.. that was my point actually =)
K10.5 doesn't beat penryn, lower die size, in IPC for desktop applications (as predicted). Nehalem is faster than penryn in games ~5-10% as far as I have seen.
However, Nehalem is out of their league (price- and performancewise) and not competing for a place in your new gaming anyway.
A single Neha can equal 2 high end harpers or mid-end shanghais for several workstation/ server tasks as shown by TR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top