Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600 system vs AMD Phenom system

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 1, 2008 7:14:41 AM

I think a moderate 775 motherboard + Q6600 is cheaper than a similarly moderate AM2 motherboard + Phenom, and both systems use same 1066 RAM. For example:

AMD system:

motherboard : Gigabyte GA-MA770-DS3 AMD 770 (Socket AM2) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard ----------- 55 pounds
CPU : AMD Phenom X4 Quad Core 9750 2.40GHz (Socket AM2) - Retail ------------------------------------------- 141 pounds

total: 196 pounds

Intel system:

motherboard : Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3 Intel P35 (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard ------------- 67 pounds
CPU : Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) - Retail ---- 124 pounds

total: 191 pounds


******************************


It appears the Intel system is slightly cheaper than the AMD system but moreover, at the stock frequency of 2.4 GHz the Intel quad is quicker than the Phenom (and it overclocks much better).


Am I right on the above or am I missing something?
July 1, 2008 7:21:10 AM

akistzortzis said:
I think a moderate 775 motherboard + Q6600 is cheaper than a similarly moderate AM2 motherboard + Phenom, and both systems use same 1066 RAM. For example:

AMD system:

motherboard : Gigabyte GA-MA770-DS3 AMD 770 (Socket AM2) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard ----------- 55 pounds
CPU : AMD Phenom X4 Quad Core 9750 2.40GHz (Socket AM2) - Retail ------------------------------------------- 141 pounds

total: 196 pounds

Intel system:

motherboard : Gigabyte GA-EP35-DS3 Intel P35 (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard ------------- 67 pounds
CPU : Intel Core 2 Quad Pro Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition" 2.40GHz (1066FSB) - Retail ---- 124 pounds

total: 191 pounds


******************************


It appears the Intel system is slightly cheaper than the AMD system but moreover, at the stock frequency of 2.4 GHz the Intel quad is quicker than the Phenom (and it overclocks much better).


Am I right on the above or am I missing something?


Right.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 7:22:24 AM

You are correct there. The only phenom that can even remotely compete with the Q6600 in most applications is the 9850 with both at stock clocks (the 9850 is still slower in most benchmarks, but it's not too far off), not the 9750, and as soon as you OC the Q6600, it leaves any current phenom in the dust.
Related resources
July 1, 2008 7:35:52 AM

I would go with the Q6600 system. It is faster and overclocks better.
July 1, 2008 7:44:06 AM

Why would you want an AMD 770 board anyways? That chipset is junk. Only one worth getting is the 790FX or 780G.
And the last I saw in the US, the dollar difference between the 9750 and Q6600 is $15, not 20 pounds (~$40).
I guess AMD systems are way overpriced there...
July 1, 2008 8:12:10 AM

akistzortzis said:
I think a moderate 775 motherboard + Q6600 is cheaper than a similarly moderate AM2 motherboard + Phenom, and both systems use same 1066 RAM.

Am I right on the above or am I missing something?


100%

That's why I have a Q6600 instead of a Phenom (besides the performance and OC potential).

UD.
July 1, 2008 8:22:46 AM

You are correct and everyone knows it. That Q6600/EP35-DS3 will OC to 3G with no voltage increase. All you do is lock the PCIe to 100 and raise the FSB to 333, then set the RAM multi to 2 or 2.4 (Gigabyte setting, it's really 1:1 or 5:6 multi) depending on 667 or 800 and you are done. It's the easiest OC in history. Do yourself a favor and get a heatsink/fan that has a backing plate.
July 1, 2008 8:50:23 AM

What RAM modules would I need in that case? The 1066 ones (PC2-8500) ? (and ouch are they expensive....)
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 9:09:03 AM

akistzortzis said:
What RAM modules would I need in that case? The 1066 ones (PC2-8500) ? (and ouch are they expensive....)


800mhz modules will limit you to 3.6ghz without even overclocking the ram (at 1:1) - check my sig
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 9:31:54 AM

pshrk said:
Looks like price/performance for AMD is about to go down (better)! (Edit: originally said up... meant to say down cause down in this case is better.)

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_9350e...

Q6600 is still the better choice if you plan to overclock.


140w TDP @ 2.6ghz!
July 1, 2008 9:35:11 AM

haha! Yeah 140W TDP is crazy, hope 45nm turns out better :-/ Although I was seriously thinking about one of those 65W TDP ones for my 780G HTPC
July 1, 2008 9:54:50 AM

apache_lives said:
800mhz modules will limit you to 3.6ghz without even overclocking the ram (at 1:1) - check my sig


This is so confusing. OK.

Q6600 runs with FSB at 333MHz - which is then described as "1333MHz" (so we multiply the real frequency by 4) but this "1333MHz" rating is meaningless? I mean how can I use the "1333 MHz" to find out what RAM I need?

Internally the Q6600 multiplies the 333MHz by 7-ish to achieve the 2.4GHz? And I presume we are free to change the multiplier to anything we wish until the CPU does not work anymore?

Additionally, the motherboard (or is it the north bridge?) takes the FSB 333 MHz and divides it by something to derive the 100 MHz for the PCIe clock as well as the 33MHz for the PCI slots. Therefore if we overclock by increasing the FSB we are also upsetting a whole range of peripherals, right?

Finally the CPU/ North Bridge needs to talk to RAM, and for that it uses the FSB frequency, in this case 333 MHz ? So I simply need 333 MHz RAM which is branded as PC2-5300 (667 MHz) ??? Unless I plan to overclock the FSB in which case I can get PC2-6400 (800MHz) ?
July 1, 2008 10:10:30 AM

I assume you read my post about locking the PCIe to 100.

You are making this way more complicated than it is. The base clock is 333.

333 x 4 = 1333 FSB speed
333 x 9 = 2997 CPU speed
333 x 2 = 667 RAM speed

333 x 2 with 5:6 divider = 800 RAM speed

Technically all you need is DDR2 667 RAM. With prices so cheap you may want to go with DDR2 800 in case you want to increase the FSB above 333 for a higher OC. Much above 333 you will need to start raising voltages to the CPU (Vcore). Also you can run the RAM at 800 with stock timings or 667 with tightened timings. Also be sure to set the RAM voltage to the manufacturers specification.
July 1, 2008 10:19:59 AM

I think you've about got it take the base FSB clock say 333 and multiply x4 = 1333 FSB cause the FSB is quad pumped. the 1333 isn't meaningless, just meaningless when calculating the memory and cpu speed. Take the base FSB clock say 333 and multiply x2 to get the memory u need to run at 1:1 which would be 667.

My FSB is clocked at 400 which means 1600 is my FSB, I need DDR2 800 for (1:1), and my E6400 proc which has a multiplier of x8 runs at 3.2GHz.
July 1, 2008 10:24:50 AM

Oh, also in response to one of your other questions... You can change the multiplier DOWN on any cpu. You can only change the multiplier UP if you have an Intel Extreme processor (denoted by an X in the name such as QX9650) or an AMD Black Edition processor.

You can't change the multiplier UP on the Q6600
July 1, 2008 10:29:09 AM

akistzortzis said:
It appears the Intel system is slightly cheaper than the AMD system but moreover, at the stock frequency of 2.4 GHz the Intel quad is quicker than the Phenom (and it overclocks much better).


It is two different processors built for different tasks. If you are going to compare the phenom with a intel then a better comparison would be the next Nehalem, those are very similar processors.
AMD is built to scale, intels (core) is built to run one single thread as fast as possible. Quad’s are just two duals glued together.
It is much more complicated to build a processor for scaling, it isn’t possible to create a processor that can work faster running single threaded applications faster than one processor built for that purpose.
Some multithreaded applications is fast on intel, if each thread works as one single thread (don’t talk to other threads and is big) in the multithreaded application.

You don't need to overclock one AMD, you need to overclock Intel.

Intel has a slow FSB that handles all memory traffic and all I/O traffic.
Phenom has Hypertransport 3.0 for I/O (~20 GB/s and it doesn't need to handle memory)
The FSB on intel is about ~10 GB/s, and it isn't that effective
July 1, 2008 10:29:29 AM

Another thing i just noticed in your post, the Q6600 runs with a FSB of 1066 (266) which means if you want 1333 FSB you will be "overclocking" because although your board may be rated for 1333 FSB the Q6600 isn't although it will handle a 1333 FSB very easily.
July 1, 2008 10:34:33 AM

kassler said:
It is two different processors built for different tasks. If you are going to compare the phenom with a intel then a better comparison would be the next Nehalem, those are very similar processors.
AMD is built to scale, intels (core) is built to run one single thread as fast as possible. Quad%u2019s are just two duals glued together.
It is much more complicated to build a processor for scaling, it isn%u2019t possible to create a processor that can work faster running single threaded applications faster than one processor built for that purpose.
Some multithreaded applications is fast on intel, if each thread works as one single thread (don%u2019t talk to other threads and is big) in the multithreaded application.

You don't need to overclock one AMD, you need to overclock Intel.

Intel has a slow FSB that handles all memory traffic and all I/O traffic.
Phenom has Hypertransport 3.0 for I/O (~20 GB/s and it doesn't need to handle memory)
The FSB on intel is about ~10 GB/s, and it isn't that effective
Are you looking for a flame war by spreading this BS, or do you just not have a clue?

Not all of it, by the way, there are shreds of truth in what you say, but your conclusions and many of your facts are BS.

Clearly you are an AMD drone.
a b à CPUs
a c 135 V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 10:48:09 AM

I never liked this Intel VS AMD threads and i most likely don't post in them because in most of them there will be flame wars and some fanboys who just say this/that is good with no reasons ruin this threads :( 
July 1, 2008 10:49:30 AM

Don't get me wrong AMD has some good stuff coming down the pike, but the Phenom is clearly not the best choice against a Q6600 @ 3G.
July 1, 2008 10:49:33 AM

Zorg said:
Are you looking for a flame war by spreading this BS


I just say how they work, intel will soon have one processor built for scaling (Nehalem).
July 1, 2008 10:53:30 AM

Maziar said:
I never liked this Intel VS AMD threads and i most likely don't post in them because in most of them there will be flame wars and some fanboys who just say this/that is good with no reasons ruin this threads :( 
Hey, how are you doing? I agree, I usually expect that they are started by TROLLs but this OP seemed genuine. I figured someone would come along and get it started though. Even most AMD fanbois have acquiesced. AMD will be back, give them a little more time.
July 1, 2008 10:55:28 AM

kassler said:
I just say how they work, intel will soon have one processor built for scaling (Nehalem).
I hope you are aware of what was in your post, and how it was written.
a b à CPUs
a c 135 V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 11:07:58 AM

Forgot to say Hi,sorry :D  long time no see :)  glad u are back to the forums :) 

AMD phenoms are good CPUs no doubt about it, but Intel still has the leads and has better price/performance ratio but give AMD more time :) 
July 1, 2008 11:16:04 AM

Zorg said:
I hope you are aware of what was in your post, and how it was written.

Yes!
There was pros and cons for both intel and amd

Intel is better running single threaded applications
AMD is better running multithreaded applications.

There is one type of multithreaded application that the core architecture is good at and that is heavy calculation. This type of multithreading don’t need to talk to other threads and it doesn’t use that much memory. Memory from the cache can be used and very little thread synchronization needs to be done.
July 1, 2008 11:18:08 AM

Maziar said:
Forgot to say Hi,sorry :D  long time no see :)  glad u are back to the forums :) 

AMD phenoms are good CPUs no doubt about it, but Intel still has the leads and has better price/performance ratio but give AMD more time :) 
Check this out AMD's Upcoming CPU/GPU Platform To Catch Up With Intel?. Lets hope they don't drop the ball.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 11:22:30 AM

kassler said:
Yes!
There was pros and cons for both intel and amd

Intel is better running single threaded applications
AMD is better running multithreaded applications.

There is one type of multithreaded application that the core architecture is good at and that is heavy calculation. This type of multithreading don’t need to talk to other threads and it doesn’t use that much memory. Memory from the cache can be used and very little thread synchronization needs to be done.


uhhhhhhh in most situations the intel will come out on top, the advantage of the architecture may narrow down a little at times but it remains overall best by a long shot
a b à CPUs
a c 135 V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 11:23:13 AM

Thanks for the link Zorg:)  lets see how will they perform
July 1, 2008 11:38:56 AM

kassler said:
Yes!
There was pros and cons for both intel and amd

Intel is better running single threaded applications
AMD is better running multithreaded applications.

There is one type of multithreaded application that the core architecture is good at and that is heavy calculation. This type of multithreading don’t need to talk to other threads and it doesn’t use that much memory. Memory from the cache can be used and very little thread synchronization needs to be done.
Dude stop, your killing me.
Here are two reviews, you need to be aware that they are comparing the Q6600 @ stock and the Q6600 gets a "free" OC to 3G, as I said earlier in this thread. So technically you need to compare the phenom numbers to the QX6850.

If you want I'll get you 10 more.

AnandTech: AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8

PC Perspective - AMD Phenom 9600 and 9900 Review: Barcelona on the Desktop


a c 172 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a c 156 V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 11:47:11 AM

Zorg said:

Much above 333 you will need to start raising voltages to the CPU (Vcore). Also you can run the RAM at 800 with stock timings or 667 with tightened timings. Also be sure to set the RAM voltage to the manufacturers specification.

Yes. To run my Q6600 at 3.3 GHz, I had to raise my vcore from 1.2625 volts allll the way up to 1.30 volts.

"AMD's Upcoming CPU/GPU Platform To Catch Up With Intel?"

Two comments:
first, this all assumes that Intel is going to stand still.
Second, the "balanced" stuff sounds like marketing, not engineering.
July 1, 2008 11:59:21 AM

jsc said:
Yes. To run my Q6600 at 3.3 GHz, I had to raise my vcore from 1.2625 volts allll the way up to 1.30 volts.

"AMD's Upcoming CPU/GPU Platform To Catch Up With Intel?"

Two comments:
first, this all assumes that Intel is going to stand still.
Second, the "balanced" stuff sounds like marketing, not engineering.
Not much of a bump in Vcore aye, you must have a good chip. I had to go higher to get 3.3, although I do have a VID of 1.3.

I know, Intel isn't going to stand still. Not to be anti competition but I hope they give AMD a little breathing room. I'm quite sure that Intel is sitting on enough stuff, that could be released very quickly, to bury AMD. I think that they realize that is not smart or the most profitable.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 12:01:13 PM

jsc said:
Second, the "balanced" stuff sounds like marketing, not engineering.


I completely agree

Plus, I like the idea of having a bottleneck- that way you know your next upgrade will make a noticable difference! If your system is balanced you'd need to upgrade more than one component to see an improvement.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 12:03:28 PM

Zorg said:
Nice.
Nvidia needs a little slapping around. :lol: 
I bet they are sweating a little.


You can just see it in the office

"That 4870 is looking pretty close to us guys... Bob, are you ok? You look like you've seen a ghost!"
July 1, 2008 12:08:32 PM

Zorg said:
Dude stop, your killing me.
Here are two reviews, you need to be aware that they are comparing the Q6600 @ stock and the Q6600 gets a "free" OC to 3G, as I said earlier in this thread. So technically you need to compare the phenom numbers to the QX6850.

If you want I'll get you 10 more.

AnandTech: AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8

PC Perspective - AMD Phenom 9600 and 9900 Review: Barcelona on the Desktop


You can show how many test as you want that messure calculation performance, as I said: Intel is faster doing calculation when the memory use is minor.

Check this test http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/, there you can see what happens on high resolutions when an average (8800GT) needs more I/O. Faster will more I/O and then the AMD scales better.
But you are RIGHT when you say that intel is better on raw processor speed.
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 12:14:28 PM

Maziar said:
Thanks for the link Zorg:)  lets see how will they perform


Intel's basic/common platform consists of a fast cpu, reliable chipset and...a "direct x 10 capable" 3D decelerator, which chews a bit of power (atom's broken platform anyone?) concidering what its capable (or incapable) of (performance per watt) vs ATi's new IGP's etc, and as for a dedicated GPU, more power consumption and cost etc, where as AMD usually ends up being a cheaper (and a slightly slower) choice, close battery life, and now with a strong and efficent platform overall, im going to say AMD now seems the better choice for most users

only thing that intel has over AMD so far here is the Atom (for now), and the soon to be Mobile Quad Core...
July 1, 2008 12:17:11 PM

You cannot compare Intel Q6600 price which is many many months older than AMD Phenom X4 Quad Core 9750 ofcourse it is cheaper. Somehow it is good as a complete spider platform.


Quote:
The performance results were relatively close between the QX9770 and Q9450 in this benchmark. Kind of surprising actually, considering the core clockspeed difference. The Q6600 puts up a good fight but is beaten in three of the four resolutions tested while the lone offering from AMD pulls ahead in the 1920 x 1200 resolution.

source: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/11....
July 1, 2008 12:23:13 PM

Zorg said:
Check this out AMD's Upcoming CPU/GPU Platform To Catch Up With Intel?. Lets hope they don't drop the ball.


That article is a pitiful joke.

#1 - You can run ATI cards in an X38/X48/P45 boards in CF quite easily.

#2 - The New AMD CPU is nothing new. They need a smaller die to cut heat and increase speeds, build the circuits with the same composites used by Intel to reduce leakage, and increase IPC. They might have a new stepping to get a few more Mhz out of the old Phenom but it's not revolutionary.

You simply have an article by a fanboy who is praising something w/o seeing it or applying logic.

I will admit that ATI is doing well by targeting the mid-range very well.

a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
July 1, 2008 12:26:11 PM

kassler said:
You can show how many test as you want that messure calculation performance, as I said: Intel is faster doing calculation when the memory use is minor.

Check this test http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9450/, there you can see what happens on high resolutions when an average (8800GT) needs more I/O. Faster will more I/O and then the AMD scales better.
But you are RIGHT when you say that intel is better on raw processor speed.


Worst case scenario, within say 10% tops but that could be driver optimization/holes or pcie or platform/chipset latencies etc, and at stock speeds, which anyone buying a Q6600 doesnt bother with :lol: 
July 1, 2008 12:26:56 PM

kassler said:
Yes!
There was pros and cons for both intel and amd

Intel is better running single threaded applications
AMD is better running multithreaded applications.

There is one type of multithreaded application that the core architecture is good at and that is heavy calculation. This type of multithreading don’t need to talk to other threads and it doesn’t use that much memory. Memory from the cache can be used and very little thread synchronization needs to be done.


Can you provide links to any mainstream sites that show Real-World Benchmarks that exhibit this.
I doubt because it's simply not true.

The AMD is not better at multithreaded applications.

AMD does have an advantage in the Server market for servers that have many cores and and run intensive memory type of functions such as Virtualization. However, home systems never hit a memory wall in performance.
July 1, 2008 12:35:52 PM

zenmaster said:
That article is a pitiful joke.

#1 - You can run ATI cards in an X38/X48/P45 boards in CF quite easily.

#2 - The New AMD CPU is nothing new. They need a smaller die to cut heat and increase speeds, build the circuits with the same composites used by Intel to reduce leakage, and increase IPC. They might have a new stepping to get a few more Mhz out of the old Phenom but it's not revolutionary.

You simply have an article by a fanboy who is praising something w/o seeing it or applying logic.

I will admit that ATI is doing well by targeting the mid-range very well.
Give AMD a break, with a little slack from Intel they could make a showing. Let's hope so anyway.
July 1, 2008 12:41:45 PM

zenmaster said:
The AMD is not better at multithreaded applications.

AMD does have an advantage in the Server market for servers that have many cores and and run intensive memory type of functions such as Virtualization. However, home systems never hit a memory wall in performance.


Eh?

So AMD does have an advantage running server software on many cores using alot of memory...


but "is not better at multithreaded applications"?



I run CFD software on a Q6600, Phenoms would be much quicker. Sure, its not your normal run of the mill desktop workload, but there ya go.
July 1, 2008 12:47:56 PM

As I read this thread, I can't help but think of a little southpark Cartman voice saying:

"Flame War! "

:) 
July 1, 2008 12:49:22 PM

OK, once more for the slow of thinking :) 

The stock Q6600 requires a 266MHz clock and if we run the RAM at 1:1 with the FSB then we require a PC2-4200 module (266 * 2 = 533 MHz). However we can run the RAM at different speeds, for example I could run at 3:2 which means the CPU/FSB at 266 MHz and the RAM at 400 MHz. Is that possible? Is it down to the north bridge to allow that or the motherboard or what? And what would the advantage be? I am under the impression that you get no benefits if you run the RAM faster than the FSB. Am I right?

Secondy, since the Q6600's multiplier cannot go up, we can overclock it by increasing the FSB speed, from 266 MHz to, say, 333 MHz. That would mean that the motherboard should allow me to lock the PCIe to 100 MHz and additionally my RAM would now be 333 * 2 = 666 MHz (so that is PC2-5300). If I overclock the FSB to 400 MHz I will then need 800 MHz RAM (PC2-6400). However I could also opt to change the FSB:RAM ratio, however running the RAM slower than the FSB would not be ideal.

Have I got the above about right now?

If yes, how do I know that a particular motherboard will allow me to (a) overclock the FSB to 400 MHz and (b) lock the PCIe to 100 MHz ?
July 1, 2008 12:55:08 PM

One day AMD will have a faster chip for the home desktop market, but that day has not come yet.
a c 111 à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
a b À AMD
July 1, 2008 12:56:51 PM

I was reading a review of the HD4870 and came across this ...



I was looking toward a 790gx but the 790fx with sb750 is very tempting ...
July 1, 2008 1:05:09 PM

AkisTzortzis,

Close, your a little mixed up. I'm not going to go through your post point by point. At 400 x 9 your CPU will be running at 3.6G. That will take more knowledge then you presently have to get a stable cool OC. Stick with the parts list you have in your 1st post and follow the settings I gave you in my 1st post and you will be at a nice mild OC to 3G. I would buy the DDR2 800 so that later as you learn more you can OC the FSB/CPU further without being forced to OC the RAM beyond DDR2 667.

At the 3G/333 (1333) OC You can run the RAM at 1:1 667 or 5:6 800 (a setting of 2.4 in the BIOS of that mobo).

I will also recommend an aftermarket HS with a backplate again.


If you can't understand what I'm saying you might want to read the OC stickies at the top of the CPU OC forum. You probably should read them anyway.

PS never start a thread with "Q6600 system vs AMD Phenom system". It's a guaranteed flame war and you will get lost in the mix.
!