Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Phenom vs INTEL C2D and C2Q - 3D rendering and gaming benchmarks

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Rendering
  • Gaming
  • AMD
  • Intel
  • 3D
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 24, 2008 11:36:50 PM

Hello everyone,
Here are the latest benchmarks in 3D rendering (including 3ds Max and Maya) and gaming performance of the latest CPUs from AMD and INTEL:
http://www.techspot.com/review/84-amd-phenom-family-per...

I hope this will help those who have not decided yet on which CPU to choose... ;) 

Enjoy!

More about : amd phenom intel c2d c2q rendering gaming benchmarks

January 25, 2008 12:00:42 AM

totally useless

since you can over clock an amd quad past 3ghz

you should only only overclock an intel qaud to 3.6ghz

stock speeds are uselss since even dell and hp oc now


WarpedSystems only sells overclocked systems, since 2003!
January 25, 2008 1:28:01 AM

you can only clock a quad to 3.6 on most systems, but phenom has troubles even reaching 3. Show me proof of alot of phenoms going past 3 or even ~2.7-8
January 25, 2008 2:05:44 AM

I have to question that benchmark something seems off the test i did on phenom's were much lower and results don't match?.

January 25, 2008 3:19:45 AM

Excuse me, but why is anyone jumping down the OPs throat??

The benchmarks show what they show. Its too bad if you dont like it, but thats the way it is.

The only thing anyone should be noting (and politely at that) is that the Intel reference systems were a 2.4GHz quad and a 3.0GHz dual core, pitted against 2.6GHz, 2.4GHz, 2.3GHz, 2.2 GHz quads and a 2.6GHz dual.

Unless someone has benchmarks which contradict, and in that case they should still be polite about it and post the links
January 25, 2008 4:02:14 AM

I don't know if it's been all the lament from enthusiasts but that link really gives an idea that stock vs. stock performance isn't all that bad.

I wonder what will happen to this architecture if they have a decent 45nm process?

January 25, 2008 4:05:02 AM

Red as always, turpit. What happened to your avatar?

Anyways the Phenom is pretty good for it's low price, it's just that it can't OC well. Here on TGH, most people likes to OC, and thus we don't take the Phenom too well.
January 25, 2008 4:13:30 AM

exactly. But it's not exactly tainted once removing it's OC capabilities.
January 25, 2008 4:31:42 AM

Done!

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&m...

Turpit settle down who jumped down his throat. I don't even see where they have been rude. Your own over reaction says volumes about you.

Every other benchmark for 3dmax paints the same picture Kentfield is faster clock for clock in max and Yorkfield is even faster. Without a little disclosure I have no idea how they got any of the scores. More importantly a render test is the only real test for this application which would be measure in time. I would dig up more but it's late.

That 5 second difference may no not seem like much but for 30 frames or 1 second of animation that's 1:30's of total domination in 3dmax.

So I would ask Mr. Walton to try to backup his facts because I could dig up loads more from many other benchmarking sites with normal test comparisons with full disclosure on how the tests were performed.



January 25, 2008 5:06:25 AM

I'll have to tell my GF and grandparents the big news. They no longer have to submit themselves to the horrible rendering times that the Phenoms promote. Their days will be so much more productive. score!

While spreading the good news in my Paul Revere clothing I'll be sure to pee on this author's car door handle. That way it's inescapable. If he wants to go home he has to touch it!!
January 25, 2008 9:10:17 AM

Hmm, yes well, if those benches are to be believed, the phenoms are only 5% slower than the core2 quads.
Dont know though, are they Intel approved?
I thought the standard contract said Intel chips had to win by not less than 20%?
January 25, 2008 1:40:45 PM

bydesign said:
Done!
Your own over reaction says volumes about you.

Really? Well, perhaps you would care to share some portion of those volumes?
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2008 2:24:42 PM

Nice article. Good read. Thanks for the linkage...

Overall, TLB issues or not, Phenom is a good performer for the price.

Yes, yes, yes, I know...you can OC the C2D and truly spank the Phenom...at stock speeds though Phenom holds it's own, much to the chargrin of the Intel fanbois...

One thing was evident was the 45nm process of the E8400 has its advantages. It will be interesting to see how Phenom compares when it too is 45nm and with further steppings/tweaks. Maybe then AMD will get 3+ GHz out of Phenom

Methinks that a 45nm Phenom will be at the right place and time when Nehalem is released.
January 25, 2008 2:48:44 PM

chunkymonster said:

Overall, TLB issues or not, Phenom is a good performer for the price.


This was never in doubt in my mind -- AMD does a good job pricing their processors slightly lower than intel's performance -- at stock/binned speeds. And that's a fair comparison.

chunkymonster said:

Methinks that a 45nm Phenom will be at the right place and time when Nehalem is released.


The problem with this is that we still have not yet heard rumours of 45nm Phenom having sucessfully booted. Remember, it takes about 1 year to go from first silicon to saleable product. The clock is ticking.

Also, note that AMD's 45nm is not in the same league as intel's 45nm -- since they are still using an oxide gate dielectric. Take a look at the minimal transistor performance between 90nm and 65nm and you'd expect to see about the same for the 45nm transition. End story -- all other things being equal, AMD will still be competitive clock for clock, but not with thermals, and their clock headroom is seriously impacted.
January 25, 2008 2:49:36 PM

Quote:
Overall, TLB issues or not, Phenom is a good performer for the price.


i wish that was true but here the prices are sooo close its not much cheaper 3 bucks?, ill take better performance for 3 bucks thats what my suppliers have them at.

January 25, 2008 2:53:14 PM

Have you seen this benchmark at LostCircuits (http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom/20.shtml)?
Strangely the Phenoms win out on UT3, and I tend to agree with the opinion that Phenom has some sort of unaccounted "power" which isn't being taken advantage of on current applications.
Interesting.
January 25, 2008 2:56:13 PM

you know turpit, thats some real BS on your part- you are acting worse than the people than the people you are bitching at. I don't know if it's been all the flame wars here lately or if you are just disgruntled at amd's lack of competitiveness or are just having a bad day. When lonf term somewhat fairly well respectted poster like you act this way it shows how far tom's has slid since being sold I guess......
so in closing....STFU and GBTW

Cheers

And keep pusing these things folks- it's the force that helps move things along.
January 25, 2008 5:25:34 PM

The good thing about phenom is how it kicks my Athlon 4400 and whenever I get the money I will replace the Athlon and go phenom.
I could go wolfie with the new asrock+wifi which I find hot, but nobody will buy my actual AM2 asrock.
I don't oc, but I tried to push my Athlon to 2.9Ghz stable without raising the voltage. (but I have to admit the asrock has a slightly higher than standar core voltaje)
January 25, 2008 5:29:14 PM

fletch420 said:
you know turpit, thats some real BS on your part- you are acting worse than the people than the people you are bitching at. I don't know if it's been all the flame wars here lately or if you are just disgruntled at amd's lack of competitiveness or are just having a bad day. When lonf term somewhat fairly well respectted poster like you act this way it shows how far tom's has slid since being sold I guess......
so in closing....STFU and GBTW

Cheers

And keep pusing these things folks- it's the force that helps move things along.


Uncalled for, especially when you are addressing a moderator but whatever floats your boat. :pfff: 

Word, Playa.
January 25, 2008 5:38:13 PM

spud said:
Uncalled for, especially when you are addressing a moderator but whatever floats your boat. :pfff: 

Word, Playa.



Meh, we all know Im just an evil paid Intel fanboy pumper thats just here to insitgate trouble and dilute facts ;) 
January 25, 2008 7:23:32 PM

I have seen the Phenom 9500 priced around the £130 range on some sites and when combined with a cheap motherboard that is good value.
January 25, 2008 8:01:55 PM

I am waiting to hear from Baron_Matrix before I decide what to think about all of this, but I do hope he leans more in favor of AMD on these benchmarks.
January 25, 2008 8:48:37 PM

X-Files said:
Hello everyone,
Here are the latest benchmarks in 3D rendering (including 3ds Max and Maya) and gaming performance of the latest CPUs from AMD and INTEL:
http://www.techspot.com/review/84-amd-phenom-family-per...

I hope this will help those who have not decided yet on which CPU to choose... ;) 

Enjoy!


I have issues with this report. 1, it included ES AMD procs. 2, nowhere in the preface (or indeed anywhere else that I could find) did it mention pricing as an objective. 3, following up on 1 and 2, it did NOT include the qx9650 or the qx6850.

Also, the tests chosen were (outside of Sandra and autodesk tests) relatively limited in terms of being comparable, and even sandra and autodesk are not all that widely used. Why not SPEC?

So, from a buyer's perspective, this report is useless. I can't buy ES chips, and AMD can't claim that production chips would be as good. (Tahoe, anyone?) Tests are not very well accepted, nor widely used. No standardised tests were conducted. Production quads were left out of the sample mix.

I think I smell a 'slant'.
January 25, 2008 9:24:50 PM

I bet a cookie that nothing or noone in this universe will ever be able to reproduce those results.
The article suggests that Phenom is a worthwhile processor... which it is not, not even close to that (maybe a little bit close, but hey).
January 25, 2008 10:42:11 PM

chunkymonster said:
at stock speeds though Phenom holds it's own, much to the chargrin of the Intel fanbois...


If by 'holds its own' you mean 'loses out in almost every real application benchmark to a lower-clocked Intel quad core', yes.

We know that Phenom wins on many synthetic benchmarks because of the integrated memory controller; we also know that that makes little difference in the real world for desktop PCs, except in a few specialised applications.
January 26, 2008 4:44:09 PM

pseudopeon said:
Have you seen this benchmark at LostCircuits (http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom/20.shtml)?
Strangely the Phenoms win out on UT3, and I tend to agree with the opinion that Phenom has some sort of unaccounted "power" which isn't being taken advantage of on current applications.
Interesting.

Doesn't mean much, as that review only uses a 7900GTX and also forgot to remove the 62 frame/s cap.
January 26, 2008 5:11:33 PM

I don't mind seeing the benchmarks, but then, the only part of the article that bugs me:

Quote:
Although the actual shipping Phenom 9700 and 9900 processors should be faster than what we will be showing you here, AMD has sent us engineering samples that in the meantime should give us a pretty good estimate of what to expect from them. The final retail versions of these two processors will be based on the improved B3 stepping. The Phenom 9500 and 9600 are retail versions that we have picked up from store shelves, so the performance of those will be identical from what you can get when purchasing either processor today.


Heh... should be faster. I'm really starting to hate hyped up articles. It would be nice to see B3's out there now for these types of articles.

But then, at least they did mention a mixed of retail phenoms 9500, 9600.

It was an alright read, in my opinion... but it doesn't change the fact that I have an Intel system. :whistle:  . o O (too bad AMD, i would have had a AMD system if it was affordable back then)
a c 127 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
January 26, 2008 6:55:10 PM

So ruling out the synthetic benchmarks I feelt kinda strange with this article. I have seen so many other benchmarks in real world apps where the 9900 couldn't even keep up with the Q6600.

I for one would like to know what mobo/ram they used with it as it could make a difference. If they used a older Intel mobo(P965) and a newer AM2+ mobo for HT3.0 support it wouldn't be a equal match. Plus to get an idea of what a clock per clock basis is they should have put the Q6600 to 2.6GHz just to see what happens.

Also you have to remember that in video editing benchmarks Phenom does have one advantage. They have their own SSE4 instructions which have been proven to improve performance. So a real equivalent will be the Q9xxx series since they will come with SSE4 instructions. I guess we will have to see what happens then.
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2008 7:44:48 PM

^Agreed.
January 26, 2008 8:23:56 PM

ryman554 said:
This was never in doubt in my mind -- AMD does a good job pricing their processors slightly lower than intel's performance -- at stock/binned speeds. And that's a fair comparison.



The problem with this is that we still have not yet heard rumours of 45nm Phenom having sucessfully booted. Remember, it takes about 1 year to go from first silicon to saleable product. The clock is ticking.

Also, note that AMD's 45nm is not in the same league as intel's 45nm -- since they are still using an oxide gate dielectric. Take a look at the minimal transistor performance between 90nm and 65nm and you'd expect to see about the same for the 45nm transition. End story -- all other things being equal, AMD will still be competitive clock for clock, but not with thermals, and their clock headroom is seriously impacted.


http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/30232/135/
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35196/118/

Thanks for playing, but your a bit behind. AMD and IBM have been on this for a while, 45nm will be beautiful.
January 26, 2008 8:30:38 PM

Quote:
Wow, how the fanboys cry when they see the benchmarks lol. Thanks for the link it was a good read. For under $200 the phenom is a great bargain clock for clock, especially when you consider the much cheaper mobo cost versus the Intel mobos.


Pardon me for bytching, but I'm running a s939 DFI with an opty 175... I found that this article left much to be desired when it comes to making a real decision as to upgrading. I have fairly deep pockets, can afford almost anything I want. However my Scottish ancestry tells me that I need to be thrifty, but not to the point of absurdity.

Now that you've got me in a rant mode, AMD left all of the s939 users out to dry. The newer AM2 boards are more expensive, and their Intel counterparts are becoming very competitive. Memory prices being the same, tell me again why should I go with AMD? To get a lesser quality processor that uses more watts? To save 100AUD up front, only to pay higher electric bills over the next four years? BTW, I can build an Intel based system here in AUS for ~50 difference if I pick the right parts. So this is one AMD fanboy that is crying.

STFU.
January 26, 2008 9:22:38 PM

Quote:
For under $200 the phenom is a great bargain clock for clock, especially when you consider the much cheaper mobo cost versus the Intel mobos.


I think I must have woken up in a weird parallel universe today. How can Phenom be 'a great bargain clock for clock' when a 2.6GHz Phenom is beaten in most of the real application benchmarks by a 2.4GHz Intel quad core?
January 26, 2008 10:55:39 PM

how come i havnt seen phenom benched on a am2 chipset? its always benched on the 790fx chipsets... kind of throws a wrench in the whole cheaper is better campaign
January 26, 2008 11:08:25 PM

MarkG said:
I think I must have woken up in a weird parallel universe today. How can Phenom be 'a great bargain clock for clock' when a 2.6GHz Phenom is beaten in most of the real application benchmarks by a 2.4GHz Intel quad core?


Actually it appears that you have been in a weird parallel universe... because the 9900 is not available yet.

In addition based on benchmarks of the engineering samples the Phenom 9900 (2.6Ghz) is much closer to the performance of the Intel Q6700 and NOT the Q6600 as some people seem to imply. (or wish.)

If AMD does nothing but fix the TLB bug and release the 9900 and it benchmarks the same as the engineering samples and sells for about $300.00 it is going to be a GREAT alternative. Especially when it competes very well against chips that cost almost twice as much. (Although I suspect Intel would drop their prices.)

What happens if AMD tweaks something else in the B3 stepping... and it clocks even better?


skittle said:
how come i havnt seen phenom benched on a am2 chipset? its always benched on the 790fx chipsets... kind of throws a wrench in the whole cheaper is better campaign


Perhaps for the same reason you don't see a new 45ns Intel chip benched while using DDR2 400 RAM?
January 26, 2008 11:20:00 PM

keithlm said:
Perhaps for the same reason you don't see a new 45ns Intel chip benched while using DDR2 400 RAM?


no.
January 26, 2008 11:36:52 PM

skittle said:
no.


No? Didn't like the memory comment thing?

Okay... how about we benchmark all of the new 45ns Intel chips in a $30.00 Foxconn motherboard. After all it is "compatible".... and it uses DDR memory so you can save even MORE money!
January 26, 2008 11:44:35 PM

Not really... 2GB of DDRII800 can be had for less than $50... And i already have some.

My point was that: How come we havnt seen phenom run on AM2 motherboards? If there was any reason for me to ever upgrade to phenom it would be because i already have an AM2 motherboard (which I do).

It seems logical that the money that I would spend upgrading to an expensive 790 mobo and a phenom might as well be put towards a cheaper P35 and Q6600... unless the phenom doesnt take a huge performance hit by running it on an older AM2 board.
January 26, 2008 11:46:45 PM

Ahem, you also have to think about the fact that on the current run of Phenoms, they're crippled by the Northbridge/IMC being locked at 1.8ghz. And since the Hyper transport speed can't be any higher than the NB speed, that locks that lower than it should be as well.

As soon as Im absolutely sure I'm stable at 2.7Ghz I'm gonna up the NB to 2.6 and HTT to 2.6 to see what kind of effect that will have.
January 27, 2008 12:46:02 AM

Mathos said:
As soon as Im absolutely sure I'm stable at 2.7Ghz I'm gonna up the NB to 2.6 and HTT to 2.6 to see what kind of effect that will have.


Good luck with that. Phenom has trouble with high HTT speeds.
January 27, 2008 1:18:35 AM

keithlm said:
Actually it appears that you have been in a weird parallel universe... because the 9900 is not available yet.


And? What relevance does it have to the fact that in these benchmarks that the AMD fanboys are touting, a Phenom at 2.6GHz is beaten in the majority of cases by a Core 2 at 2.4GHz?

Is that really supposed to be better 'clock for clock'?

Quote:
In addition based on benchmarks of the engineering samples the Phenom 9900 (2.6Ghz) is much closer to the performance of the Intel Q6700 and NOT the Q6600 as some people seem to imply. (or wish.)


Have you even bothered to read the article that this thread is about? The Q6600 beats the 2.6GHz Phenom in almost every real application benchmark in the article.

Quote:
What happens if AMD tweaks something else in the B3 stepping... and it clocks even better?


Intel releases their new chips and Phenom is still an also-ran.
January 27, 2008 3:03:52 AM

MarkG said:

Have you even bothered to read the article that this thread is about? The Q6600 beats the 2.6GHz Phenom in almost every real application benchmark in the article.


Based on just that article I would rate the Q6600 almost as good as the Phenom 9700 on the average. The Phenom 9900 definitely was better than the Q6600.

(Other benchmarks have shown the Phenom 9900 to be much closer to the Q6700 in performance.)
January 27, 2008 3:46:54 AM

B-Unit said:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/30232/135/
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35196/118/

Thanks for playing, but your a bit behind. AMD and IBM have been on this for a while, 45nm will be beautiful.


Excuse me? Try to publish something on 45nm within the past year.

I work in the semiconductor industry, so if you wanted to contradict me, you would have pointed to the just-released IEDM transistor data. Not some write up of promises from IBM's team. Folks, it ain't pretty for IBMs process compared to Intel's.

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT0116...

Look for table 1. IBM needs to implement hiK/MG ASAP.
January 27, 2008 4:39:54 AM

Thanks ryman. So I'm guessing that fujitsu and TSMC are getting better numbers than Intel, on cell size and L-gate because of immersion tech. Does that sound right to you?
Intel has increased thier lead in process, with highK/MG, yet they seem to be loosing valuable wafer space. Is immersion that tough/ expensive?
January 27, 2008 4:49:02 AM

well, considering the fact that IBM has already tested and done a press release on their hiK/MG it says a lot. But they've tested theirs at 32nm. AMD has nudged them into adapting it to 45nm for k10 45nm update.
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2008 5:55:49 AM

I'm with turpit on this one.

The op wasn't starting a flame war - jumping in with all of the OC crap wasn't warranted.

The benchies show some interesting results across the board.

I was very impressed with the E8400 results too.

Ryman's point about AMD's transition from 90 to 65nm using oxide gate tech is particularly important ... who is to say their 45nm node will be any more successful? 65nm has only shown results for power ... not for speed.

I thought it was a good article ... hence I linked it in another thread some time ago.

The Phenom does have a few areas where it trumps the core2 quads at equivalent speed ... but they are few and far between.

Let's hope another respin yields something good.

Otherwise the core2quads will jump in price again in a week ... I hope people have been noticing this quiet trend !!!
January 27, 2008 6:30:54 AM

Mathos said:
well, considering the fact that IBM has already tested and done a press release on their hiK/MG it says a lot. But they've tested theirs at 32nm. AMD has nudged them into adapting it to 45nm for k10 45nm update.


Try again. Show me a working testchip or core. Ask anybody in the industry about what IBM's "me too" press release was ~1year ago and you will get a rolling of eyes.

IBM is also not the only company working on 32nm. It is true that there are rumours of a 45mn rev2 process from IBM where the hiK is scheduled to be implemented. Truthfully, the ROI on that is limited at best. You're better off doing (as I suspect IBM will do) focusing your new R&D efforts on getting it up and running on a new node (ie, 32nm) than doing it for production on an existing node. Otherwise you'll be spreading your research engineers very thin and by the time you have it perfected and ramped your next node will already be here. Now, IBM would be stupid not to have pilot lines of Hik/MG on their 45nm node (or even 65nm node!) to get the hang of doing it such that the learning on the 32nm node won't be quite so bad. But ramping for volume production? I'm not so sure.

Nevertheless, it is certainly not an "advantage" to delay implementation to the 32nm node, nor a "technological achievement" over Intel, since they have already demonstrated a 32nm test chip (with hik/mg) back at the IDF in October. It's instead a tacit admission of being a generation behind.

In the end, press releases mean nothing. And that includes intels IDF showings. Functional chips and device data mean everything. And right now, if you would bother to look at the data, the IBM consortium (as well as the rest of the industry) is at a significant technological disadvantage to intel's 45nm process. There is no debate over this.
January 27, 2008 6:37:35 AM

endyen said:
Thanks ryman. So I'm guessing that fujitsu and TSMC are getting better numbers than Intel, on cell size and L-gate because of immersion tech. Does that sound right to you?
Intel has increased thier lead in process, with highK/MG, yet they seem to be loosing valuable wafer space. Is immersion that tough/ expensive?


I was actually truthfully suprised to see this too. Certainly, immersion *does* help out quite substantially in getting to a smaller size. Won't do much for transistor performance -- which is where the Fujitsu data really stands out. But, then again, Fujistu isn't designed to be a high-performance part. You'll have to ask somebody who can interpret the data better than I can.

There is no doubt that intel's lead in the race to get smaller did decline in the 45nm node. Whether that was due to the fundamental limitations of size and intel not choosing to go to immersion or other things is unknown. What i do know is that hte tools and resists were just not ready for prime time when the wet/dry decision was made for the pitch requirements for 45nm. Some would argue that they *still* aren't ready for primetime.... =) So, while it was a technological achievement to do45nm dry (and sitll achieve comparable cell sizes), I'm not so sure it wasn't a decision made for intel rather than by intel.

The overall expense of an immersion tool, when amoritized over the lifetime of a fab and the number of wafers produced is really a drop in the bucket. It's a non-issue. The bigger issue are the stability of the alpha tools and new defect modes.
January 27, 2008 6:40:05 AM

Reynod said:

Ryman's point about AMD's transition from 90 to 65nm using oxide gate tech is particularly important ... who is to say their 45nm node will be any more successful? 65nm has only shown results for power ... not for speed


Acutally, the transistors for 65nm are *slower* than those of 90nm. The physics tells you that.

Looking at the IEDM data, IBM 45nm should show *some* improvement over IBM 65nm. It's hard to say how much. But it's clear that it won't be in the same league at the same thermals as intels.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!