Whats Better AMD vs. Intel

[allies]

Originally posted by: RaptureMe
Its not saving power when overclocked nor is it saving power when the power saving features are all off like eist ect...
Running at 4ghz 24/7 does use that much electric dont matter what craptastic excuse you give me I have the elecrit bill in hand and its always the same every month till I got this damn power hungry beast!!
I cant underclock it for what I use it for as I need all the umph I can get from it for what I do.

Stop contradicting yourself!

Edit:

Although I guess getting 3 setups for the price of 1 isn't bad Enjoy your rigs.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: yh125d

Originally posted by: DrBombcrater

Originally posted by: yh125d
Are you sure? I think in the AT review they used DDR2 on the Q9650, and DDR3 on the i7 (had no choice). I don't see a test setup page in AT's article, so I can't be sure. I can't find the Toms review at all so I don't know on that. Could someone link it please?

Tom's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/re...om-ii-940,2114-14.html
"On the Intel platforms, we used DDR3-1333 with timings set to CL 7.0-7-7-21"

AT doesn't specifically say what memory was used on each platform, but it lists the socket 775 board they used as the Intel DX48BT2, which is a DDR3 board.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...owdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=11

Good catch. No wonder the Toms and AT reviews put the PHII lower comparatively... they're not really "equal" setups

LOL they were never equal to begin with.

AMD was always the budget approach.

Intel the Speed Demon route. This hasnt changed yet, and is going to take a while b4 it ever does.


In all honestly, skip yorkfield, grab a 920 setup for 100-200 more.
And learn how to overclock QPI. Dont push it too hard, an i7 @ 3.6ghz with 8 possible threads is nothing to laugh at, even if you dont use it.

An gainestown with 16 possible threads @ near 4ghz is what the ITs call extasy.

Or in a bit when you can get AM3 which should put it on a clock-clock basis with C2Q

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: alliesOr in a bit when you can get AM3 which should put it on a clock-clock basis with C2Q

ill beleive it when i see it.

 

[Soulkeeper]

"No Flaming Please" ?
lol

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Duvie
That is lame....why saddle the Intel Q9650 with the more expensive DDr3...in the reviews I listed above they ran DDR2 on the Intel setups....It is because you want to have the price high enough to spin it the way you want...

Actually both ran DDR3 on the Intel systems. I don't know why, but they did. Probably because the specific X48 MB's they ran only supported DDR3, but why not use a MB that supports DDR2 for an apples to apples comparison?

I would say that the Q9650 is faster in applications where it doe3sn't need to access main memory often. It is usually faster by a heft margin at that. Of course it is slower at accessing main memory, but it has a huge cache to make up for that in most applications.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Duvie
That is lame....why saddle the Intel Q9650 with the more expensive DDr3...in the reviews I listed above they ran DDR2 on the Intel setups....It is because you want to have the price high enough to spin it the way you want...

Actually both ran DDR3 on the Intel systems. I don't know why, but they did. Probably because the specific X48 MB's they ran only supported DDR3, but why not use a MB that supports DDR2 for an apples to apples comparison?

I would say that the Q9650 is faster in applications where it doe3sn't need to access main memory often. It is usually faster by a heft margin at that. Of course it is slower at accessing main memory, but it has a huge cache to make up for that in most applications.

Yeah I saw that after the point...I originally saw the Pc2-1066 and didn't see why that would be used in the AMD setups where 800 should be stock...

That being said the DDr3 would have no real advantage over the DDr2 in this case....Wont change results....only makes the base system more expensive to the amd system, though I contend I could put that chip on a more reasonably priced p35/p45 chipset with ddr2 and still have close results.

 

[taltamir]

xbit labs just did a review on that... A second take of using DDR3 vs DDR2 on a P45 platform with modern C2Q CPUs... OCing a top C2Q can slightly increase the ability of ram speed to matter... a high end DDR3-1600 with low timings can outperform a DDR2-1066..., the DDR3-1333 performs about the same (due to worse timing). The highest performance difference they achived, on an overclocked CPU with the biggest ram speed difference, was a mere 6% difference.

EDIT that was 6% between a DDR2-800 to a DDR3-1600 with low timings on a heavily OCed system!

 

[Duvie]

Exactly so a base non oc'd system whether DDR2 1066 or DDR3 1333 would be virtually no different....

Other then base cost of the system they tested being more I think we have put that horse to rest that the DDR3 1066 did not skew the results for an Intel win....

Whether the improved IMC of the Ph3 can square up clock to clock performance will have to be seen....I believe I heard it was still going to be DDR2. Is this right?

 

[RaptureMe]

I asked no Flaming.. Damn it whats wrong with you people??
Are all of you intel fan boys so much with your heads so far up there asses you cant see a good deal when its 2 feet in front of you??
For fucks sake you people piss me off sometimes..
not one of you people answered my question as to whats better between Q9650 and PII 940 at stock clock for clock when the hell did anyone bring I7 into this whole post except me claiming that I sold my sig rig for 3 amd systems??
Breaking it down Q9650 $333 Vs PII 940 $235.
Using the same DDR2 1066 same everything Mobo,HDD,ect..
I never asked if Intel using DDR3 would kick amds 940's ass.
No shit it would...
Why not compair my 939 x2 3800+ to a old 486 since we are so fucking far off topic here.
Just like If I would match a AM3 945 with DDR3 vs a C2Q with DDR2 Am3 945 would rape intel all day long...
Show me some proof instead of making retarded claims you cant backup.
I have been researching this shit all day long while those of you brain washed fanboys have been waisting my time and those links you provided shows Phenom II 940 kicking the shit out of all the C2Q in about 75% of those benches...
Main Programs being WinRar and Nero which I use most of the time...
I swear you people must get paid to sway people from amd and buffalo them into your same twisted train of thought...


You need to cool it dude...People have been trying to be honest, and not flame. The only flaming here I see is you.

Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Duvie
That is lame....why saddle the Intel Q9650 with the more expensive DDr3...in the reviews I listed above they ran DDR2 on the Intel setups....It is because you want to have the price high enough to spin it the way you want...

Actually both ran DDR3 on the Intel systems. I don't know why, but they did. Probably because the specific X48 MB's they ran only supported DDR3, but why not use a MB that supports DDR2 for an apples to apples comparison?

I would say that the Q9650 is faster in applications where it doe3sn't need to access main memory often. It is usually faster by a heft margin at that. Of course it is slower at accessing main memory, but it has a huge cache to make up for that in most applications.

Yeah I saw that after the point...I originally saw the Pc2-1066 and didn't see why that would be used in the AMD setups where 800 should be stock...

That being said the DDr3 would have no real advantage over the DDr2 in this case....Wont change results....only makes the base system more expensive to the amd system, though I contend I could put that chip on a more reasonably priced p35/p45 chipset with ddr2 and still have close results.

Of course the lack of a scientific test makes that just conjecture. One I would feel is most likely, but alas none of the major review sites actually tested similar setups for some reason.

I was rather upset at this, as I thought I understood how each platform performed in comparison to each other, then realized that I only had a ballpark figure. The difference in memory and quality of the MB may make a difference, so I was left not really knowing if the X4 940 was a competitor to the Q9400, Q9450, or the Q9550. The Q9650 and Q9770 scored high enough that I believe they is out of the realm of being the ballpark of the X4 940.

 

[Duvie]

I showed you so in the 9th post.....I showed you the apps you use and the processors you wanted....

If you dont buy what Anandtech or tomshardware reviewed then that is your problem.....

This doesn't even register on the flame war radar...

I suggest check your tone unless you are just BSing with us....

 

[RaptureMe]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: Duvie
That is lame....why saddle the Intel Q9650 with the more expensive DDr3...in the reviews I listed above they ran DDR2 on the Intel setups....It is because you want to have the price high enough to spin it the way you want...

Actually both ran DDR3 on the Intel systems. I don't know why, but they did. Probably because the specific X48 MB's they ran only supported DDR3, but why not use a MB that supports DDR2 for an apples to apples comparison?

I would say that the Q9650 is faster in applications where it doe3sn't need to access main memory often. It is usually faster by a heft margin at that. Of course it is slower at accessing main memory, but it has a huge cache to make up for that in most applications.

Yeah I saw that after the point...I originally saw the Pc2-1066 and didn't see why that would be used in the AMD setups where 800 should be stock...

That being said the DDr3 would have no real advantage over the DDr2 in this case....Wont change results....only makes the base system more expensive to the amd system, though I contend I could put that chip on a more reasonably priced p35/p45 chipset with ddr2 and still have close results.

Of course the lack of a scientific test makes that just conjecture. One I would feel is most likely, but alas none of the major review sites actually tested similar setups for some reason.

I was rather upset at this, as I thought I understood how each platform performed in comparison to each other, then realized that I only had a ballpark figure. The difference in memory and quality of the MB may make a difference, so I was left not really knowing if the X4 940 was a competitor to the Q9400, Q9450, or the Q9550. The Q9650 and Q9770 scored high enough that I believe they is out of the realm of being the ballpark of the X4 940.

See you are arguing for the same thing as me I want to see 1-1 tests ran otherwise those benches are totaly unfair and useless.
There must be more to this with them not testing simular specs..
Its a conspiracy I tell ya a conspiracy