please help X4 9850 or Q9450??

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
Plus I am cunfused about amd quads which has 3 levels of cach vs. intels 2 levels?
I am starting think when apps start to get updated to take advantage of the extra levels of cach amd may fly by intels quads or am I just dreaming?

Applications are typically not coded to "take advantage of cache"...usually its the other way around and the cache is there to take advantage of the applications.

Generally applications are cache "unaware". Compilers are cache aware and when compiling source for a target architecture then the compilers will do things to attempt to take advantage of cache arrangements to speed up execution speeds.

But again by the time codes get recompiled and distributed to the distribution streams the hardware has usually iterated another generation beyond, leaving intact a perpetual lag between software optimizations and hardware capabilities.

Originally posted by: Rhoxed
Not to deny Intel of anything (they are definately faster for the $$ right now) But when overclocking the Phenom 9850BE it actually scales better and preforms better at 3Ghz + then the Q6600 (or 65nm Intels) Say you have a 3.2Ghz Phenom vs a 3.2Ghz Intel, the phenom will win in most benchmarks. (keeping 65nm as the rule)

I will be utterly amazed if the Phenom does not require at least 50% more power consumption than the Q6600 when both are clocked to 3.2GHz on their minimum Vcore needed for stable operation at that clockspeed.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: Rhoxed
Not to deny Intel of anything (they are definately faster for the $$ right now) But when overclocking the Phenom 9850BE it actually scales better and preforms better at 3Ghz + then the Q6600 (or 65nm Intels) Say you have a 3.2Ghz Phenom vs a 3.2Ghz Intel, the phenom will win in most benchmarks. (keeping 65nm as the rule)

I highly doubt that. In fact, from what I've seen, Phenom scales worse than C2Qs, mainly because the L3 is not in sync with the core clock.

Of course, if you have comparative benchmarks of a 3.2GHz Phenom beating a 3.2GHz Q6600, feel free to provide them. I've seen benchmarks at 3GHz and the Q6600 is faster almost every time.

 

[Ratman6161]

Originally posted by: Rhoxed
Not to deny Intel of anything (they are definately faster for the $$ right now) But when overclocking the Phenom 9850BE it actually scales better and preforms better at 3Ghz + then the Q6600 (or 65nm Intels) Say you have a 3.2Ghz Phenom vs a 3.2Ghz Intel, the phenom will win in most benchmarks. (keeping 65nm as the rule)

As soon as i get 3.3+ stable on the phenom i will try and update with every bench i can think of. Untill then i am sitting at 3.15 happily. Oh and graysky's HD benchmark will see the highest score of a phenom soon. (still wondering how it will stack to the intels)

Back on topic: Op with a Q6600 right now, i would really wait (oc current rig) and wait untill the newer processors come out. The Q6600 really isnt outdated by any means, especially with what you are using it for.

But...in the reviews I've seen the Phenoms generally seem to be lucky to get to 2.8 let alone 3.2. So you may have a very rare specimen if you have one that will do 3.2. On the other hand, almost any Q6600 G0 will do 3.2 and many will do much more. And in the Intel world, the Q6600 is kind of yesterday's news compared to the latest and greatest from AMD. Although I guess thats a somewhat natural comparison since they are close to price parity.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
You might have to try 7.5 x 426 to get that 3.2Ghz, Q9450 has a 7.5 multiplier!

Q9450 and x3350 are 8x333 stock. trust me, I know!

I am really hoping that x3350 being less energy to run will fix this a tad bit seeing how I am lossing money due to high gas prices and its getting harder and harder to pay bills

uh...so you're spending $350-$400 to save $3 a month? keep it for 11+ years and you'll get all of your money back...smart...




@OP: (leaving conscience in other room) uh, er, yeah, go buy a phenom!!! I hear that they're, um, uber 1337 and stuff! 125w tdp FTW!!!

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: SolMiester
You might have to try 7.5 x 426 to get that 3.2Ghz, Q9450 has a 7.5 multiplier!

Q9450 and x3350 are 8x333 stock. trust me, I know!

I read that post to mean the guy was suggesting intentionally dropping the multiplier by 0.5 (since Penryns have half-integer multipliers whereas Conroes do not) to snag a slightly higher FSB and the associated memory boost.

(although I am not a fan of doing this as I have yet to see anything but synthetic benchmarks showing the boosts in FSB and ram speeds helps anything performance-wise, but it does make your hardware work harder)

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
I highly doubt that. In fact, from what I've seen, Phenom scales worse than C2Qs, mainly because the L3 is not in sync with the core clock.

Of course, if you have comparative benchmarks of a 3.2GHz Phenom beating a 3.2GHz Q6600, feel free to provide them. I've seen benchmarks at 3GHz and the Q6600 is faster almost every time.

Yeah, Matbe's review of the 9850 includes scores at 3.2GHz and even at that clockspeed, it doesn't hold up well against the stock Q9450 or QX6850.

http://www.matbe.com/articles/...-4-a-3-2-ghz/page7.php

 

[bryanW1995]

@idc and accord99: on intel rigs the mem speed has very little impact on performance. however, especially on quads, it DOES have a large impact on system stability. I can't get stable over 454 fsb on my 9450 unless I get stupid with my voltages, while I easily got 468 on my 65 nm e6750 at the same voltages. I'd run it at the lowest fsb possible to get your oc, ie, 8x. AMD rigs, otoh, tend to extract more performance out of mem speed increase b/c of the imc. that could make a 9850 @ 3.2 with a significant ht increase more competitive. In fact, I seem to recall gary key mentioning something about this about 6 mos ago.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
@idc and accord99: on intel rigs the mem speed has very little impact on performance. however, especially on quads, it DOES have a large impact on system stability. I can't get stable over 454 fsb on my 9450 unless I get stupid with my voltages, while I easily got 468 on my 65 nm e6750 at the same voltages. I'd run it at the lowest fsb possible to get your oc, ie, 8x. AMD rigs, otoh, tend to extract more performance out of mem speed increase b/c of the imc. that could make a 9850 @ 3.2 with a significant ht increase more competitive. In fact, I seem to recall gary key mentioning something about this about 6 mos ago.

Yorkfield on i680 doesn't work for effectively the same fundamental reason...operating a decent FSB speed with quads requires more than your average mobo implementation for signal integrity needs.

 

[TC91]

Originally posted by: Ratman6161

Originally posted by: Rhoxed
Not to deny Intel of anything (they are definately faster for the $$ right now) But when overclocking the Phenom 9850BE it actually scales better and preforms better at 3Ghz + then the Q6600 (or 65nm Intels) Say you have a 3.2Ghz Phenom vs a 3.2Ghz Intel, the phenom will win in most benchmarks. (keeping 65nm as the rule)

As soon as i get 3.3+ stable on the phenom i will try and update with every bench i can think of. Untill then i am sitting at 3.15 happily. Oh and graysky's HD benchmark will see the highest score of a phenom soon. (still wondering how it will stack to the intels)

Back on topic: Op with a Q6600 right now, i would really wait (oc current rig) and wait untill the newer processors come out. The Q6600 really isnt outdated by any means, especially with what you are using it for.

But...in the reviews I've seen the Phenoms generally seem to be lucky to get to 2.8 let alone 3.2. So you may have a very rare specimen if you have one that will do 3.2. On the other hand, almost any Q6600 G0 will do 3.2 and many will do much more. And in the Intel world, the Q6600 is kind of yesterday's news compared to the latest and greatest from AMD. Although I guess thats a somewhat natural comparison since they are close to price parity.

im not 100% sure but it seems that most phenom reviews always seem to use the stock cooler for their overclocks which IMO is not truly indicative of the OC'ing potential due to thermal issues.