Reconsidering Phenom?

[Gikaseixas]

i invest my $$ very wisely, i spent some on my Phenom and couldn't be happier

If you buy a Corvette over a 911 you are a fanboy? or a E63 over a M5? if it satisfies my needs...

 

[amenx]

Originally posted by: corsa
yes..this thread is about whether people are reconsidering AMD over Intel

but.... If Phenom won, would anyone notice?

Looking at the results here,, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution. It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's here.

:music: "There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks" :music: ..a very familiar tune round here.. :laugh:

Yes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...m-x3-8750_6.html#sect0

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/...pu&id=610&pagenumber=3

http://www.digit-life.com/arti...phenom-x3-8750-p3.html

http://www.neoseeker.com/Artic...md_phenom_8750/11.html

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/h...le.php/3261_3742726__8

And heres a review where the x3 8750 takes a "severe beating" at the hands of an e8400 in Crysis:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/568/10

 

[amenx]

Woops, heres some more:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...3/amd_phenom_x3_8750/5

http://hothardware.com/Article...Core_Processor/?page=7

 

[ZootyGray]

Perhaps you could try err..after "reading" my post for the first time.

Also who is the "you" that YOU are talking about? What YOU say certainly doesn't describe ME - and has naught to do with my post. I doubt that makes sense to YOU.

YOU, I see as a typical flamer - I could be wrong about YOU; but I have MY opinion, and other thoughts which I will keep private, because they, like your response are also OFF TOPIC - which was my original point - and thank you for so skillfully illustrating the problem.

Are you reconsidering Phenom?

I am!!!! And I would appreciate a discussion without disruption from YOU and too many OTHERS.

Looking at your system details that you spew at the end of all your posts - I question how you would have anything to say about "reconsidering Phenom". I suspect you would take issue with my private thoughts also - alas, they are private; and inaccessible to you.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

the only gaurentee you have is that it will run stock at what it was designed for.

Anything after is a matter of luck.


EDIT:

This APPLIES to BOTH AMD and INTEL and ANY OTHER CPU you can find on the market.

QFT

Originally posted by: ZootyGray
Perhaps you could try err..after "reading" my post for the first time.

Also who is the "you" that YOU are talking about? What YOU say certainly doesn't describe ME - and has naught to do with my post. I doubt that makes sense to YOU.

YOU, I see as a typical flamer - I could be wrong about YOU; but I have MY opinion, and other thoughts which I will keep private, because they, like your response are also OFF TOPIC - which was my original point - and thank you for so skillfully illustrating the problem.

Are you reconsidering Phenom?

I am!!!! And I would appreciate a discussion without disruption from YOU and too many OTHERS.

Looking at your system details that you spew at the end of all your posts - I question how you would have anything to say about "reconsidering Phenom". I suspect you would take issue with my private thoughts also - alas, they are private; and inaccessible to you.

Go away, troll. (I mean this in the nicest possible way.)

 

[corsa]

Originally posted by:amenx

Yes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there:

Because the Majority of reviews test @ low resolution, like all those u have kindly linked us to

Intel needs to play @ 1024 x 768 ...because once we hit reality @ 1680 x 1050 and above with max settings....its game over.
Motto to this story, Buy a high end video card, run high resolutions.....so u can be bottle necked by ur Core Duo. :brokenheart:

edit: and yes, I'm definitely considering Phenom.

 

[ZootyGray]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

I really have to disagree with too many of you. Unbelievable!!!!

THIS THREAD clearly, if you read the OP, is NOT ABOUT INTEL AT ALL.

This is about Phenom:
= "I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far."

= "Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz".

= "running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge".

= "with the "new" south bridge"


THIS OP IS ALL ABOUT PHENOM!!!!

ANYTHING INTEL is simply off-topic!!!!

Pardon me; but I really value the ENGLISH language. If you are so illiterate as to believe that this is, IN ANY WAY, about intel crawp - then I have no additional time to waste trying to convince you otherwise.

You can justify FLAMEWAR all you like - flamers need no justification. It's all bs. So thank you very little for trashing a thread that's clearly
(if you speekada eengleeeshh)
all about AMD recent news about PHENOM
and the best test report is RIGHT HERE ON ANANDTECH. (hello?)

- I don't need your illiterate apologies either - but I would like to be able to discuss the AMD PHENOM without disruption. And that is clearly impossible in THIS HIJACKKEDD THREAD - thank you very little mr moderator, SIR (salutes der geshtapoh and walks away in disgust)
Keep this up, and you will have a vacation.
Markfw900 Anandtech Moderator

I readily cop to my mistakes - but not this. This is all yours to decipher - hint - it's in code - real esoteric stuff.

I bet you think I have a bad attitude also. You a shrink? Get away from me, cos I did not ask for that. That's all your problem. You think I am supposed to like it?

Read it ALL again for the first time >>> Then have a flame party - at your own expense, not mine.

(leaves knowing the illiterates in the group will find a way to justify continuance of same)
(somebody had the audacity to utter the word "objective") (my opinion of 'objective' is already subjective) (don't think too hard about this)

I feel like I should apologize for somebody elses problem; but the problem is I already dealt with my codependency issues. So it's all yours. You see, I truly DO NOT CARE. Thx for your help "brother".

 

[amenx]

Originally posted by: corsa
Originally posted by:amenx

Yes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there:

Because the Majority of reviews test @ low resolution, like all those u have kindly linked us to

Intel needs to play @ 1024 x 768 ...because once we hit reality @ 1680 x 1050 and above with max settings....its game over.
Motto to this story, Buy a high end video card, run high resolutions.....so u can be bottle necked by ur Core Duo. :brokenheart:

edit: and yes, I'm definitely considering Phenom.

Lower res is NECESSARY to properly bench CPU performance in games. The higher the res, the less the CPU is doing and the more the GPU takes over. If it shows huge differences, then the review is suspect. The OCC review you linked to even has the Intel chips far surpassing the X3 at 1920x1200, which in my view is questionable, at that res, these CPUs should be about equal.

Anyway dude, the evidence from a wide range of sources is overwhelmingly in favor of the Intel chips. You can go the Phenom route if thats your wish, and I really hope you do, AMD needs the business to stay afloat.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
They certainly consume more power then their Intel counter parts. But, I doubt 99.9% of people would ever notice a difference on their electric bill on say a 70 watt CPU vs. a 140 watt CPU. Now, there are people who may run things like folding 24/7 or when you consider a corporate environment where you may have a large number of multisocket servers, the potential savings certainly may add up and make a lot of sense to take into consideration. But for the vast majority of users who may use their PC for maybe a few hours a day (an probably not have all 4 cores on their CPU @ 100% load for the time they do use their machine) I doubt there's going to be any real tangible difference on their electric bill.

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
All I can really get out of the above benchmarks is that in real world games the Phenom is perfectly capable in real world resolutions. Intel still has other advantages for many people (less power consumption, higher clocks available, cheaper motherboards to get a decent overclock) but I don't think the overall performance of the Phenom is really that poor.

Well, P4/PDs were 'perfectly capable' in real world resolutions too... and sure they ran hotter, but the difference in power consumption probably won't be noticed on the bill, right?

I wonder if any AMD fans used that logic to consider the P4 when A64 was on top? Nah, didn't think so!

Seriously, I see a lot of excuses in this thread, but still no convincing reason why someone should consider a Phenom over a C2Q other than pure bias / fanboyism - which I have no problem with, btw. In fact, I wish there were more AMD fans around who stick with them no matter what - god knows AMD needs the money right now.

However, from an objective POV, looking at performance, power, price, overclocking - C2Q has Phenom covered. This isn't saying Phenom is 'crap', C2Q is simply better, and when its a two horse race, you don't put your money on the losing horse.

1. A more complete platform in the low cost area (HDMI, more USB, better onboard graphics, etc...)

2. NO DAMN PUSHPIN HSF!! (sorry, pet peeve... )

3. If you play Company of Heroes, the Phenom is just plain faster...

Other than that, it's all about the money (which is near equal this week...)

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: amenx

Lower res is NECESSARY to properly bench CPU performance in games.

If u want to know how good is a CPU as a gaming platform makes more sense to bench it in a real gaming scenario than in irrelevant scenario.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: ZootyGray

Originally posted by: Pale Rider
I'm curious to see if anyone is reconsidering the Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge.

I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far (including AT).

I really have to disagree with too many of you. Unbelievable!!!!

THIS THREAD clearly, if you read the OP, is NOT ABOUT INTEL AT ALL.

This is about Phenom:
= "I would like to see some performance numbers posted but no one has so far."

= "Phenom now that multiple hardware sites have them running at 3.5 GHz".

= "running at 3.5 GHz on air with the "new" south bridge".

= "with the "new" south bridge"


THIS OP IS ALL ABOUT PHENOM!!!!

ANYTHING INTEL is simply off-topic!!!!

Pardon me; but I really value the ENGLISH language. If you are so illiterate as to believe that this is, IN ANY WAY, about intel crawp - then I have no additional time to waste trying to convince you otherwise.

You can justify FLAMEWAR all you like - flamers need no justification. It's all bs. So thank you very little for trashing a thread that's clearly
(if you speekada eengleeeshh)
all about AMD recent news about PHENOM
and the best test report is RIGHT HERE ON ANANDTECH. (hello?)

- I don't need your illiterate apologies either - but I would like to be able to discuss the AMD PHENOM without disruption. And that is clearly impossible in THIS HIJACKKEDD THREAD - thank you very little mr moderator, SIR (salutes der geshtapoh and walks away in disgust)
I readily cop to my mistakes - but not this. This is all yours to decipher - hint - it's in code - real esoteric stuff.

I bet you think I have a bad attitude also. You a shrink? Get away from me, cos I did not ask for that. That's all your problem. You think I am supposed to like it?

Read it ALL again for the first time >>> Then have a flame party - at your own expense, not mine.

(leaves knowing the illiterates in the group will find a way to justify continuance of same)
(somebody had the audacity to utter the word "objective") (my opinion of 'objective' is already subjective) (don't think too hard about this)

I feel like I should apologize for somebody elses problem; but the problem is I already dealt with my codependency issues. So it's all yours. You see, I truly DO NOT CARE. Thx for your help "brother".

This level of disrespect is not appreciated here. You really need a vacation to cool off and come to terms with how people in these forums treat each other.

With only 31 posts you seem completely intolerant of anyone not endorsing your opinions of what is on-topic or off-topic and frankly with 31 posts you have proven you know anything about how these forums operate on a social netiquette level.

Try cooling off and working harder on getting along with others.

Calling mods geshtapoh is ridiculous, absolutely not a single other poster on this forum is behaving with such juvenile attitude issues.

Aigo, Mark, someone, please ban this poster, the nastiness they are spewing is just ridiculous.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: corsa
Intel needs to play @ 1024 x 768 ...because once we hit reality @ 1680 x 1050 and above with max settings....its game over.
Motto to this story, Buy a high end video card, run high resolutions.....so u can be bottle necked by ur Core Duo. :brokenheart:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-quad-core-processors/

Really? I don't see it.

Call of Duty 4 @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 50fps / Q6600 - 49fps / 9850BE - 49fps

World in Conflict @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 69fps / Q6600 - 58fps / 9850BE - 60fps

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 79fps / Q6600 - 78fps / 9850BE - 78fps

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 51fps / Q6600 - 51fps / 9850BE - 51fps

F.E.A.R. @ 1920 x 1440
Q9450 - 67fps / Q6600 - 67fps / 9850BE - 67fps

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 63fps / Q6600 - 57fps / 9850BE - 57fps

Crysis (v1.2) @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 40fps / Q6600 - 40fps / 9850BE - 41fps

Average framerate @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 59.86fps
Q6600 - 57.14fps
9850BE - 57.57fps

I guess numbers speak louder than fanboy fantasies...

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: corsa
Intel needs to play @ 1024 x 768 ...because once we hit reality @ 1680 x 1050 and above with max settings....its game over.
Motto to this story, Buy a high end video card, run high resolutions.....so u can be bottle necked by ur Core Duo. :brokenheart:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/...-quad-core-processors/

Really? I don't see it.

Call of Duty 4 @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 50fps / Q6600 - 49fps / 9850BE - 49fps

World in Conflict @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 69fps / Q6600 - 58fps / 9850BE - 60fps

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 79fps / Q6600 - 78fps / 9850BE - 78fps

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 51fps / Q6600 - 51fps / 9850BE - 51fps

F.E.A.R. @ 1920 x 1440
Q9450 - 67fps / Q6600 - 67fps / 9850BE - 67fps

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 63fps / Q6600 - 57fps / 9850BE - 57fps

Crysis (v1.2) @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 40fps / Q6600 - 40fps / 9850BE - 41fps

Average framerate @ 1920 x 1200
Q9450 - 59.86fps
Q6600 - 57.14fps
9850BE - 57.57fps

I guess numbers speak louder than fanboy fantasies...

Errr... 2FPS average? Other then WIC, according to the numbers above, I'd say everything is pretty equal. *edit - I see what you are saying now, that they are fairly equal as res goes up... my bad. At least we can agree that Phenom and Intel perform fairly equal in many cases.

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: ZootyGray
How do you spell HIJACK?

Looking at the results here,, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution. It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's here.

:music: "There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks" :music: ..a very familiar tune round here.. :laugh:

As Mark points out, those results are just not consistant at all. Performance does not go up when you increase the resolution, no matter what CPU you are on.

Phenom isn't a bad gaming solution per clock, if you look at Anandtech's review the X4 9950 manages to beat the 2.5GHz Q9300 in 2 out of 3 tests and is virtually tied in Crysis. But it is no magical solution and it does not beat Core 2 in per clock gaming performance and certainly a 2.3GHz Phenom does not beat a 3.2GHz C2Q.

So yes, there is something wrong with those benches. Whether something is fudged or the reviewer doesn't know what he is doing, I don't know. But those are not representative of either gaming benchmark performance nor real world gaming performance of Phenom vs Core 2.

I guess I just don't see it. I looked at the numbers on the overclockersclub website, with the exception of a single resolution it looked like everything behaved as you'd expect.

In the Crysis bench where there were some odd results for Phenom, I think some of you are mistaking low results that are obviously due to some kind of bug at 1280x1024 for 'gaining' FPS when it moves to 1680x1050. You'd expect something like 35FPS at 1280x1024 if you average the FPS at 1024x768 and 1680x1050. But instead it only scores 22FPS... this is obviously some wierd situation at that resolution, not the Phenom gaining FPS as you jump from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050.

Originally posted by: amenx

Originally posted by: corsa
yes..this thread is about whether people are reconsidering AMD over Intel

but.... If Phenom won, would anyone notice?

Looking at the results here,, even though the 9600BE is clocked slower than the Q6600, it still manages to come out on top for gaming 5 out of 7 times. Perhaps even more impressively, 3 of those 7 times it bests a 3.2GHz C2Q. The point is that if someone is building a gaming machine, and wants to go quad core, Phenom may genuinely be the better solution. It seems as if the same property holds true for Phenom X3's vs Core 2 Duo's here.

:music: "There has to be something wrong with those benchmarks" :music: ..a very familiar tune round here.. :laugh:

Yes, those results are not consistent with the majority of reviews out there:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl...m-x3-8750_6.html#sect0

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/...pu&id=610&pagenumber=3

http://www.digit-life.com/arti...phenom-x3-8750-p3.html

http://www.neoseeker.com/Artic...md_phenom_8750/11.html

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/h...le.php/3261_3742726__8

And heres a review where the x3 8750 takes a "severe beating" at the hands of an e8400 in Crysis:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/568/10

Yup, Intel cleans up at 1024x768. Intel also seems to be quicker in most non-gaming benches. Phenom does plenty fine if you plan on using any modern video card and game above 1280x1024 (not that the frames you get would be slow below that res on Phenom, they'd just be slower then the C2D's). I'm not saying the Phenom is better, I'm just saying it's better then most people here seem to realize.

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
They certainly consume more power then their Intel counter parts. But, I doubt 99.9% of people would ever notice a difference on their electric bill on say a 70 watt CPU vs. a 140 watt CPU. Now, there are people who may run things like folding 24/7 or when you consider a corporate environment where you may have a large number of multisocket servers, the potential savings certainly may add up and make a lot of sense to take into consideration. But for the vast majority of users who may use their PC for maybe a few hours a day (an probably not have all 4 cores on their CPU @ 100% load for the time they do use their machine) I doubt there's going to be any real tangible difference on their electric bill.

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
All I can really get out of the above benchmarks is that in real world games the Phenom is perfectly capable in real world resolutions. Intel still has other advantages for many people (less power consumption, higher clocks available, cheaper motherboards to get a decent overclock) but I don't think the overall performance of the Phenom is really that poor.

Well, P4/PDs were 'perfectly capable' in real world resolutions too... and sure they ran hotter, but the difference in power consumption probably won't be noticed on the bill, right?

I wonder if any AMD fans used that logic to consider the P4 when A64 was on top? Nah, didn't think so!

Seriously, I see a lot of excuses in this thread, but still no convincing reason why someone should consider a Phenom over a C2Q other than pure bias / fanboyism - which I have no problem with, btw. In fact, I wish there were more AMD fans around who stick with them no matter what - god knows AMD needs the money right now.

However, from an objective POV, looking at performance, power, price, overclocking - C2Q has Phenom covered. This isn't saying Phenom is 'crap', C2Q is simply better, and when its a two horse race, you don't put your money on the losing horse.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in general, Intel still has better power usage charactoristics, that's the bottom line. I think the situation was a bit different in the P4 days. The P4 was slower, there really wasn't any real thoughts otherwise... see above for the Phenom. Also, if a single core P4 takes 100 watts and a single core A64 took 50 watts (not sure of the actual numbers, just using those for example) I think that'll be a much bigger deal then two quads that use the same wattage as those above (Phenom @ 100, Intel Quad @ 50) as the single core will taxed to at or near 100% much more then the average quad. When I game I'm lucky to see 25% core use, if I had a single core processor I'd probably see much closer to 100% use. Anyway, you are right, the C2D's are better, no doubt. I just don't think it actually makes as much difference for Joe Average User as it would for say a data center or someone who has 4 rigs running 24/7 folding.

Just my $.02 and then some.

Oh yea, and just because I use a Phenom and praise it to some degree, please realize I'm not Zooty.

 

[v8envy]

Nope, still not reconsidering.

The 9850BE is now a worthy competitor to the 6600 at stock clocks and still lags a little at the typical and EXXTREEM overclocks. But as pointed out multiple times it is more expensive in both initial outlay and operating costs. It's no longer 'you pay more for a lot less' with the Phenom. But it is definitely 'a little more for a little less.' Whether that little more or that little less is significant to the typical consumer is irrelevant to me -- I still see it as a suboptimal solution.

One more go-around and it'll be a contender vs the 6600. But at $190 vs $235 CPU, $170 vs $90 board and higher ongoing operating costs for the same or slightly lower performance I see no reason to get one yet.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: harpoon84


1. A more complete platform in the low cost area (HDMI, more USB, better onboard graphics, etc...)

2. NO DAMN PUSHPIN HSF!! (sorry, pet peeve... )

3. If you play Company of Heroes, the Phenom is just plain faster...

Other than that, it's all about the money (which is near equal this week...)

+3

ROFL on 2 but i totally agree with you on these 3.

 

[Gillbot]

My only comment...

Keep the discussion Civil, ZootyGray keep your personal opinions and attacks to yourself. All side of the discussion are welcome but if this thread continues to derail, I'll lock it down myself.

Anandtech Moderator
Gillbot

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: harpoon84


1. A more complete platform in the low cost area (HDMI, more USB, better onboard graphics, etc...)

2. NO DAMN PUSHPIN HSF!! (sorry, pet peeve... )

3. If you play Company of Heroes, the Phenom is just plain faster...

Other than that, it's all about the money (which is near equal this week...)

+3

ROFL on 2 but i totally agree with you on these 3.

This thread reminds me in many ways of the ATI vs Nvidia threads that would go round and round over resolution vs. AA on differing games. There is hardly ever a single solution that dominates top-bottom across the board at all levels, and the rare times such hardware exists then all the threads shift to "yeah but factor in price/performance it sucks".

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Nope, still not reconsidering.

The 9850BE is now a worthy competitor to the 6600 at stock clocks and still lags a little at the typical and EXXTREEM overclocks. But as pointed out multiple times it is more expensive in both initial outlay and operating costs. It's no longer 'you pay more for a lot less' with the Phenom. But it is definitely 'a little more for a little less.' Whether that little more or that little less is significant to the typical consumer is irrelevant to me -- I still see it as a suboptimal solution.

One more go-around and it'll be a contender vs the 6600. But at $190 vs $235 CPU, $170 vs $90 board and higher ongoing operating costs for the same or slightly lower performance I see no reason to get one yet.

Just to keep it straight...at NewEgg it's
9850BE boxed for $205
Q6600 boxed is $195
AM2+ motherboards start at $65
Quad core capable Intel boards start at $45

 

[tamaron]

Originally posted by: Extelleron


When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison. My E8400 beats the Phenom 9500 I had before, even in Cinebench rendering, when both are overclocked.

You can insert the Q6600 there if you want, Phenom still ends up slower and more expensive. And what bothers me is that you can't run Vista x64 with a Phenom unless you want to sacrifice overclocking potential.

No way! apples to apples man!

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: tamaron

Originally posted by: Extelleron


When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison. My E8400 beats the Phenom 9500 I had before, even in Cinebench rendering, when both are overclocked.

You can insert the Q6600 there if you want, Phenom still ends up slower and more expensive. And what bothers me is that you can't run Vista x64 with a Phenom unless you want to sacrifice overclocking potential.

No way! apples to apples man!

The debate seems to be generated by people defining apples differently.

Apples can be clockspeed, or cores, or total system cost, or system level power consumption, etc.

You want apples-to-apples at a core-to-core level, or at a price-comparative level, or a power-consumption equivalent level?

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
Yup, Intel cleans up at 1024x768. Intel also seems to be quicker in most non-gaming benches. Phenom does plenty fine if you plan on using any modern video card and game above 1280x1024 (not that the frames you get would be slow below that res on Phenom, they'd just be slower then the C2D's). I'm not saying the Phenom is better, I'm just saying it's better then most people here seem to realize.

At higher resolutions, the bottleneck is on the graphic side of the equation. Not the processor. So arguments centering on the similar performace at high resolutions are meaningless. The stress isn't on the CPU.

If you interpret that to mean "My Phenom Performs Fine At High Rez Gaming, and Therefore It's Fine For My Purposes", then great! But know it's not your CPU delivering the goods. Or mine, for that matter. It's ATI or nVidia doing the work.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: tamaron

Originally posted by: Extelleron


When the dual core is faster then the quad, then it is a fair comparison. My E8400 beats the Phenom 9500 I had before, even in Cinebench rendering, when both are overclocked.

You can insert the Q6600 there if you want, Phenom still ends up slower and more expensive. And what bothers me is that you can't run Vista x64 with a Phenom unless you want to sacrifice overclocking potential.

No way! apples to apples man!

The debate seems to be generated by people defining apples differently.

Apples can be clockspeed, or cores, or total system cost, or system level power consumption, etc.

You want apples-to-apples at a core-to-core level, or at a price-comparative level, or a power-consumption equivalent level?

I'm actually not even debating...all I did was answer a question and correct some pricing.

 

[v8envy]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Just to keep it straight...at NewEgg it's
9850BE boxed for $205
Q6600 boxed is $195

I'd prefer 'cheapest to cheapest', but I'll grant you the newegg pricing. Only 5% higher for the Phenom it is, for arguments sake.

AM2+ motherboards start at $65
Quad core capable Intel boards start at $45

Not every $65 AMD motherboard will handle a 9850. Plenty will simply BURST INTO FLAMES on account of inadequate PWM. And you can utterly forget overclocking.

Somewhat like that on the Intel front. A $45 quad supported motherboard will probably be on the very ragged edge of stability and reliability. There have been occasional hot deals for sturdy P35 boards at $60, but I'm talking 'buy it today' pricing.

Why not compare commonly used boards people are using for their setups? That'd be a $170 790 chipset MSI for the Phenom and $90 DS9L or abit P35 for Intel.

Edit: oops, I see the MSI is down to $150. Still, it's more.

Edit2: newegg has the Q6600 OEM $185, free ship. Phenom 9850 non-BE tray is $209, but as you pointed out 9850BE boxed is $205. Neither one is truly apples to apples, but now we're pushing 10% difference on the CPU. Also, isn't the 9950 the competitor to the Q6600 performance wise? That one is still $235.

My original point still stands -- a little (25%?) more for a little less (lower top end OC performance).

 

[Rhoxed]

you could also use the DFI for phenom @ 130$ - Still more expensive, but there are plenty of options.

Now if you think about it, If Anand can get a 9600BE to 3.3 on a SB750 board, depending on the pricing, it could equal to a q6600 in price, and only slightly slower at max speeds (seeing as the newer batches of Q6600 have a hard time getting to 3.6)

still, AMD is not the choice for enthusiast computing, but as slowspyder always says, its really not as bad of a platform as people seems to think.

 

[corsa]

Reconsidering Phenom?

AMD Phenom X4 9950 BE processor tested @ guru3d.com

Alright, let me start off with the pricing, the processor as tested today will cost you roughly 170 USD in e-tail at this very moment. Guys, for a quad-core processor that's just extremely good value. In most scenarios this processor is definitely faster compared to a Core 2 Quad Q6600, and Intel knows it as they recently adapted their pricing strategy to match this product. Intel however already moved on towards the Penryn based quad-cores, and though we still need to test it, the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 Quad Core Processor is likely a better match to this processor, yet sells for ~ 250 USD. So value wise... this processor wins.

Looking at it from another side, ironically there's no quad-core platform more power efficient that the combo of a Phenom X4 with a 790GX based mainboard. Overall these four logical CPU cores are hardly stressed at all, let alone four of them simultaneously. Our tests showed that the PC in IDLE was only consuming 115 Watts, which was an all-time low.

:beer: