Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom as good or better than Intel in gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Is Phenom as good?

Total: 96 votes (23 blank votes)

  • As good or sometimes better
  • 3 %
  • As good
  • 7 %
  • Not as good
  • 65 %
  • Better than I thought
  • 14 %
  • We need more benches with Phenom at higher clocks
  • 13 %
September 23, 2008 10:56:30 PM

OK, Im sure this is going to surprise a few people, and before you vote, Id ask you to have a look here http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=6 and here http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=4 I was quite surprised to see these results. We always see Intesl cpus oceed in benches, this is one of the few times we see Phenom oceed, and as you see it does quite well. I know its only 2 findings from the same site, but if anyone has other links with Phenoms being benched in gaming at a 3.0 overclock, please share, as we all know, Deneb is on its way, and the IPC seems to be 10-15% faster and higher clocks. We may see a dramatic change soon when it comes to benching games, as well see both cpu makers being included in benches in the future!
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2008 10:59:26 PM

AMDZONE NEEDS MORE DRONES
September 23, 2008 11:07:52 PM

Youre in three threads here, all about AMD, and crapping in each one, now whos the drone. Have nothing to add here? Move on
Related resources
September 23, 2008 11:21:07 PM

Fairly interesting read, just makes me think about what actually makes any given processor/architecture good at gaming compared to synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark.

The Phenoms in those links faired equal or just below the Intel cpu's in those game benchmarks, but in synthetic benchmarks they pail in comparison. Why is that?
September 23, 2008 11:30:28 PM

Here's a look at triple core performance. It does well in Supreme Commander:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3...

It also does well in Crysis, World in Conflict and Company of Heroes:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2320536,00.a...

Not overclocked to 3.0, but it shows the architecture isn't that bad. When Deneb quads and Heka triples with L3 cache arrive at stock 2.8 and 3.0, they should do well against current Intel duals and quads, though Nehalem is supposed to fair better.

I'll see if I can overclock my triple core next weekend, but I only have a stock cooler right now. It's not a black edition (the 8850's are arriving in December with unlocked multipliers) but some sites have gotten a stable 2.7.

closed_deal said:


The Phenoms in those links faired equal or just below the Intel cpu's in those game benchmarks, but in synthetic benchmarks they pail in comparison. Why is that?


Phenom's aren't all that bad. They do better than I expected overall, which is why I stuck with an AMD platform. Look at the benchies across the board:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q...[2193]=on&prod[2194]=on&prod[2162]=on&prod[2163]=on&prod[2164]=on

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q...
September 23, 2008 11:32:05 PM

Im thinking Intels SM4 , all those things are better for Intel. The arch's themselves lead to better performance in certain things/apps. Now if it came to decoding, Im thinking that Intel would have a good lead, as they always have, going back to the P4 days over the K8 series.
September 23, 2008 11:36:23 PM

If you look at the 3.0 clocking, the Phenom often wins at that speed. This holds much promise for Deneb. If we see these improvements with IPC improvements in Deneb, it will fair very well against Intel at higher clocks in gaming
September 23, 2008 11:46:54 PM

From the LegionHardware you posted in another thread, Phenom 9950 @ 3.0Ghz was having a hard time catching up to E6850. With the exception of Devil May Cry 4, Phenom fared poorly in all other games (in UT3 Phenom @ 3.0Ghz ran on par with Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz).

Let's take Anand's numbers.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=334...

As it can be seen here, Phenom consistently performed lower than Intel's counterparts.

I think afterall it really depends on the codes. However from the looks of it, Phenom fared rather poorly on majority of the games out on the market.
September 24, 2008 12:11:30 AM

its good deal for someone that wants a budget quad core pc. you can get 2.3 ghz phenom x4 black edition with an unlocked multiplier for $120
September 24, 2008 12:34:26 AM

Thanks for the link. It appears Phenoms arent that far off at all but obviously losing to Intels cpus in most games, tho not all. Also , Id point out that the difference between a Intel dual at 3 Ghz is only 1-3 fps behind a Intel quad at the same speed in SupCom. So quads arent making a huge difference in that game. I was just surprised ti actually see Phenom do well at any testing/benching vs Intel. This makes me look forwards to Deneb and see what it brings. Im taking off my enthusiast hat here and looking at the bigger picture, which is AMDs viability . Theres some hope here and there for them, and things are getting better. Once Deneb hits, Im hoping to see them in benchmarks, as theyve been pretty much unseen, and for good reasons, and that also hurts AMD. With Deneb, this may change
September 24, 2008 12:41:54 AM

I agree. Although my outlook on AMD is rather pessimistic, I think we should wait until more solid benchmarks arrive.
September 24, 2008 1:06:20 AM

Agreed. Just like i7, we simply dont know enough, and we know more about i7 than Deneb
a c 143 à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 24, 2008 1:09:21 AM

Perhaps AMD will cater to niche markets with its CPUs, but put a solid GPU at every price point. I'm not worried about the viability of AMD, I just wonder how we might see their product mix shift, and where their corporate focus will be, say a year from now. I'm not at all worried, just curious.
September 24, 2008 1:25:29 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
OK, Im sure this is going to surprise a few people, and before you vote, Id ask you to have a look here http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=6 and here http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=4 I was quite surprised to see these results. We always see Intesl cpus oceed in benches, this is one of the few times we see Phenom oceed, and as you see it does quite well. I know its only 2 findings from the same site, but if anyone has other links with Phenoms being benched in gaming at a 3.0 overclock, please share, as we all know, Deneb is on its way, and the IPC seems to be 10-15% faster and higher clocks. We may see a dramatic change soon when it comes to benching games, as well see both cpu makers being included in benches in the future!


All this shows is that those benches hit a GPU wall.
A massive change in CPU Clocking on the Intel CPUS (3.0 vs 3.6Ghz) showed 0-1 FPS Difference.
Hence, we have hit a GPU wall.

That shows nothing about the AMD Chips being competitive.
In fact, They even point out that a Q6600 underclocked from 2.4 to 1.6 Ghz shows about the same performance.

In the text of the article, they clearly discuss the GPU limits not the CPU limits.
Other games require a strong CPU to fully match the GPU.
It depends upon the game.

September 24, 2008 1:25:49 AM

I find Phenom gaming performance to be fairly inconsistent, in some games it matches Core 2, but falls behind in others. Overall, Core 2 is still some way ahead, and is the more consistent performer, especially considering it generally overclocks a fair bit higher than Phenom.

September 24, 2008 1:25:52 AM

Well, with multithreading taking off (sarc), who knows? Looking back, their fusion ideas were a big part of their future plans. If theyve diverted from this direction, it means theyre reaching. The general direction is towards a fusion type solution, and I think thats where we should look
September 24, 2008 1:29:08 AM

Thats simply not true. You cant have it both ways. Either the games that show no cpu bottleneck, the Phenom equals or even betters the Intel solutions clock for clock, or as seen in 2 of the games, at least, theres a cpu bottleneck, as can be seen by higher clocking equals higher fps http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=10 Look here for example, whats that saying? Between 3.3 and 3.6, we see an increase of 5 fps, or close to 4% increase in fps. Reread those links
September 24, 2008 1:30:36 AM

You know, this is a huge stretch, but maybe AMD is keeping quiet about the Denebs because they have a complete jewel on their hands. Maybe they know that their processor at 3.0 GHz can completely wipe Intel's new Nehalem chip off the board. At least, what if the 3 GHz Deneb could take out every Wolfdale, regardless of speed? If I was AMD, and possibly had a jewel that Deneb could be, I'd like to be as silent as possible so not to alert the competition. Because if AMD alerted intel of this crown jewel, then maybe Intel will try harder to beat AMD. But if AMD keeps quiet, Intel will never know how fast their processors need to be to be the best. Im rooting for AMD this time around. I want to see a beast of a processor come out of their camp.
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2008 1:34:51 AM

when I was doing my build (month ago) I was thinking between q6600 or amd 9850. I chosen intel cpu because I saw better overclocking potential and I have it running at 3.4ghz and this was my first overclock ever haha :D . Hopefully future applications will utilize 4 or more cores and by the time I will do complete upgrade (I guess 2-3years, will change gpu when they come out) there will be am3 and new intel processors with improved steppings and such. I don't know why people go for the first processors when they come out when prices will drop.
September 24, 2008 1:39:52 AM

the last resort said:
You know, this is a huge stretch, but maybe AMD is keeping quiet about the Denebs because they have a complete jewel on their hands. Maybe they know that their processor at 3.0 GHz can completely wipe Intel's new Nehalem chip off the board. At least, what if the 3 GHz Deneb could take out every Wolfdale, regardless of speed? If I was AMD, and possibly had a jewel that Deneb could be, I'd like to be as silent as possible so not to alert the competition. Because if AMD alerted intel of this crown jewel, then maybe Intel will try harder to beat AMD. But if AMD keeps quiet, Intel will never know how fast their processors need to be to be the best. Im rooting for AMD this time around. I want to see a beast of a processor come out of their camp.


Won't happen I'm afraid. Deneb is basically a die shrink with a larger L3 cache and perhaps some minor tweaks thrown in.

Even if Deneb is a miracle Nehalem killer, boasting about it now is hardly going to give Intel much of a heads up. It takes a LOT more than a few months to create a new CPU, look how long Intel took to make a CPU that beat K8.
September 24, 2008 1:43:59 AM

cal8949 said:
its good deal for someone that wants a budget quad core pc. you can get 2.3 ghz phenom x4 black edition with an unlocked multiplier for $120



it better be unlocked,,because 2.3ghz is too low for anything below an 8800gt,will only bottleneck the gpu[according to tom's].....:) 
September 24, 2008 1:44:44 AM

If its gpu bottlenecked, from what Im getting, is that Phenom performs equal, close, or maybe better, but in cpu bottlenecked games, Intel wins out, as it should be, as Intels solutions are better currently, but things like this doesnt wash well for certain people. But its true. And if AMD can pick it up some, the disparity will be so close as to not matter. Thats the thing, people want to say "cpus cant be a bottleneck" when in these benches it shows otherwise. Then they come to the conclusion where Intel generally wins in MOST benches, that AMD is totally inferior, when actually, it depends if the game is cpu limited or not, and thats all there is to it. I dont know why people think it goes both ways, the answer is obvious
September 24, 2008 1:49:48 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thats simply not true. You cant have it both ways. Either the games that show no cpu bottleneck, the Phenom equals or even betters the Intel solutions clock for clock, or as seen in 2 of the games, at least, theres a cpu bottleneck, as can be seen by higher clocking equals higher fps http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=10 Look here for example, whats that saying? Between 3.3 and 3.6, we see an increase of 5 fps, or close to 4% increase in fps. Reread those links


Pick Your Link and Analyze the Results.
Your 1st link above shows little Difference between a Q6600 underclocked to 1.6Ghz and a Q9650 Clocked to 3.6Ghz.
Hence GPU Bottleneck.

This link shows a Q6600 @ Stock 2.4 Ghz beating the 3.0Ghz OC'd Phenom by 125 Frames to 120 Frames.
This is a Quad-Core Optimized Game since you can see the 2.4Ghz Q6600 Beating a 3.0Ghz Dual Core C2D.

So you need to look at Quad vs Quad.

Since this chart shows CPU and not GPU Limits, the AMD gets trounched.
But even here we are hitting non-CPU walls with a 50% in Clock Speed frm 2.4Ghz to 3.6Ghz only shows a 10% clock increase.
It could be a GPU Limit or they could consider running their DDR2-1066 RAM at DDR2-1066 Speeds instead of the DDR2-800 Speeds as showin in the charts to see if they were hitting a memory wall.

In General, "Walls" are not Brick in nature but more like a molasses pit where things start to slow as you enter into them.
As you progress far enough into the wall, you may hit a hard limit.

September 24, 2008 1:53:15 AM

Lets say this, a Inel cpu will let you jump 5feet, but a AMD only goes to 4 feet, If the game only requires 4 feet, theyll both be equal. Whereas, if the game allows for 7 feet and you have a gpu that can get there, the Intel solution will still die out at 5 feet regardless. heheh, ok so maybe its not the best way to show it, but its easy to understand, and I believe its being applied in these benches
September 24, 2008 1:55:32 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
If its gpu bottlenecked, from what Im getting, is that Phenom performs equal, close, or maybe better, but in cpu bottlenecked games, Intel wins out, as it should be, as Intels solutions are better currently, but things like this doesnt wash well for certain people. But its true. And if AMD can pick it up some, the disparity will be so close as to not matter. Thats the thing, people want to say "cpus cant be a bottleneck" when in these benches it shows otherwise. Then they come to the conclusion where Intel generally wins in MOST benches, that AMD is totally inferior, when actually, it depends if the game is cpu limited or not, and thats all there is to it. I dont know why people think it goes both ways, the answer is obvious


If a game is GPU bottlenecked then it doesn't really matter how the CPU performs in those games. Of course AMD performs close to Intel in those cases because CPU speed becomes irrelevant. In games where CPU speed *does* matter the faster CPU would come out on top, and in most cases it would be Intel. I fail to see how that in anyway makes Phenom a 'better' gaming CPU.
September 24, 2008 1:55:46 AM

If you factor in over clocking intell is superior, but on a level playing field I would say AMD is not that far off.

My K-8 X2 6000+ is based on the same architecture that was the original K-8 that launched in 2003.

In benchmarks my processor still does fairly well in my opinion. Not bad for some 5 year old tech.

September 24, 2008 2:00:29 AM

Somehow I get the feeling youre more concerned about Intel outdoing AMD than the results seen here. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=3 Now, show me this great disparity, or admit its gpu limited. OK, then go here http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=10 Again, we start seeing disparity, but on a game where we are still seeing increases by going from 3.3 to 3.6, and guess what? The Intel solution wins. If you dont see what Im saying here, nevermind, its not important. For others, Im sure theyll see the correlation
September 24, 2008 2:04:36 AM

In non cpu limited games, which there are plenty of, the Phenom performs as well as any Intel cpu, and sometimes even wins out. This is widely known? I havnt seen this happening alot on this forum, and I believe by the responses Im getting from some people, its either new news to them, or something else
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
September 24, 2008 2:11:00 AM

Well for me, my Athlon 5000 is fine for now. The problem with AMD is that they haven't advanced much from the old Windsor core. The Brisbane was an effort to cut production costs and reach higher clock speeds, at the expense of instructions per clock (IPC). It didn't work for the Pentium 4, and AMD realized quickly, but not quick enough, that it wasn't going to work for them. The Phenom was late seemingly due to bad management, didn't reach the clock speeds it needed to, and had the TLB bug for too long. I think there was so much panic of the TLB bug that AMD spent alot of resources fixing it and since those resources were not used efficiently they fell further behind.

I hope that AMD makes a bigger improvement with their 45nm chips over the previous generation, than Intel did. I'd really like to see AMD come out ahead, but for now they at least need to close the gap with Intel and have a 10% or less clock per clock performance deficit rather than the closer to 20% they have now. AMD needs to get on the ball, because I want good CPUs I can stick in my AM2+ board when I want to upgrade :D .
September 24, 2008 2:15:58 AM

No, I don't get what you are saying?

Are you saying the Intel Chips handily outperform AMD Chips Clock for Clock in CPU limited games but some games are GPU limited so you can buy a less expensive Chip?

If So I agree which is why I think the E5200 which can easily hit 4.0Ghz is the sweetest deal around. When building a Gaming system, you should start there and spend as much on GPU as possible. Then as you move up the line, you need to decide on Quad vs Dual Core based upon different factors. There are many threads on Q6600 vs E8400/E8500 which are all priced similarily.

I'm not the one who created a thread titled "Phenom as good or better than Intel in Gaming?" So it is you that raised the question and provided the data. I simply pointed out that in the data you provided, AMD faired poorly and the answer was clearly "no" to your question based upon the data you provided.
September 24, 2008 2:30:40 AM

But, alot of games are clearly gpu limited. We simply dont know how many, as they dont either use a Phenom, or they dont oc the cpu. So, my point is, yes Phenom can and does outdo Intels finest cpus in some games. As clearly seen here. If you come at this thread saying thats not possible, the links Ive provided clearly dispells that notion. Yes, it has to be a gpu limited game, but nonetheless, is true. So, I conclude, when it comes to gaming, unless the game isnt cpu limited, Phenom holds its own against Intel. Isnt hard to understand, tho Im thinking more surprising than anything. Sites have done a huge disservice regarding this issue towards AMD IMO.
September 24, 2008 2:43:13 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
But, alot of games are clearly gpu limited. We simply dont know how many, as they dont either use a Phenom, or they dont oc the cpu. So, my point is, yes Phenom can and does outdo Intels finest cpus in some games. As clearly seen here. If you come at this thread saying thats not possible, the links Ive provided clearly dispells that notion. Yes, it has to be a gpu limited game, but nonetheless, is true. So, I conclude, when it comes to gaming, unless the game isnt cpu limited, Phenom holds its own against Intel. Isnt hard to understand, tho Im thinking more surprising than anything. Sites have done a huge disservice regarding this issue towards AMD IMO.


No, you are still missing the point.
In GPU limited Games, It does not pay to buy a Phenom.
Drop $80 on an E5200 instead of $180 on a Phenom.
And if you are going to drop $180 on a Phenom, get the Q6600 which always outdoes it.

Nobody is doing AMD a disservice.

If I wanted to build a low power HTPC system, I would likely look at a BE-2400 with one of AMDs integrated graphic boards.
This is an area they have a clear advantage with chipsets with lower power as well as superior integrated graphics.

When looking at a gaming system, AMD has a tougher challenge with the cheap E5200 beating all AMD Dual Cores.
The same could be said about the E2180, but the E5200 is easily worth the extra $10.

The Q6600 can be had for as low as $160 for OEM and trounces all AMD Quad Cores.
The only ones found for less run considerably slower. So much so that the E5200 would even beat them.

September 24, 2008 2:50:52 AM

zenmaster said:
No, you are still missing the point.
In GPU limited Games, It does not pay to buy a Phenom.
Drop $80 on an E5200 instead of $180 on a Phenom.
And if you are going to drop $180 on a Phenom, get the Q6600 which always outdoes it.

Nobody is doing AMD a disservice.

If I wanted to build a low power HTPC system, I would likely look at a BE-2400 with one of AMDs integrated graphic boards.
This is an area they have a clear advantage with chipsets with lower power as well as superior integrated graphics.

When looking at a gaming system, AMD has a tougher challenge with the cheap E5200 beating all AMD Dual Cores.
The same could be said about the E2180, but the E5200 is easily worth the extra $10.

The Q6600 can be had for as low as $160 for OEM and trounces all AMD Quad Cores.
The only ones found for less run considerably slower. So much so that the E5200 would even beat them.


Lol, stop wasting your breath. It's not getting through. :na: 
September 24, 2008 3:01:47 AM

So is CoH cpu or gpu limited? Im thinking were just using different terms here is all. If you say its gpu limited, then Im right, if you say its cpu limited then your right. The phenom is 2 fps difference at 19x12 at 3Ghz, with the Intel quad at 3Ghz. Read the last comment on this page http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=3
September 24, 2008 3:24:40 AM

Now, using a less limited gpu, the Intel wins out. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=2 So, by any measure, if youre gpu is limited, then a Phenom will come close to a Intel cpu. Now, since Ive stated that the newer x2 cards are held back by current cpus, or are limited/bottlenecked by them, and mainly the 4870x2 and not so much the G280, its plain to see, since most people dont have these cards, alot game at 19x12, using lessor gpus. Going by that, the phenom will hold its ground in many games, because theyre gpu limited. So having a lessr gpu we find Phenom doing well against Intel. Thats what I mean.
September 24, 2008 3:27:51 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Now, using a less limited gpu, the Intel wins out. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=2 So, by any measure, if youre gpu is limited, then a Phenom will come close to a Intel cpu. Now, since Ive stated that the newer x2 cards are held back by current cpus, or are limited/bottlenecked by them, and mainly the 4870x2 and not so much the G280, its plain to see, since most people dont have these cards, alot game at 19x12, using lessor gpus. Going by that, the phenom will hold its ground in many games, because theyre gpu limited. So having a lessr gpu we find Phenom doing well against Intel. Thats what I mean.


How about buy a far cheaper dual when it's gpu limited? Phenom doesn't stick no matter what. :sarcastic: 
September 24, 2008 3:46:01 AM

Im refering more to how much misunderstood and maligned Phenom has been , especially when it comes to gaming. I agree, it all comes down to price performance, but Ive seen many people here recommend to gamers to get a quad when it only benefits in only certain configurations in certain games. To me, this doesnt make sense, and tho youre right, if phenom doesnt bring more for more money, why bother? But, again, that wasnt the point of this thread. Im not so sure people knew whats been shown here, and have to take it into consideration while purchasing their rigs, or recommending them as well. A lessor card requires a lessor cpu in alot of games. Sometimes its overkill, sometimes its simply not known. Theres people who dont play games that dont take advantage of a faster cpu, and theyre mostly gamers, but want a quad. If the Phenoms are priced competitively, and perform to the levels shown in the games show, and even moreso with lessor cards, the Phenom has to become more considered. And like I said, thats for those who still want a quad, but a cheap one thatll perform. Like was said earlier, its more niche ATM, but with Deneb, it will become less so, and i dont see the Q66 getting faster, cheaper maybe, but not faster. Anyways, until I saw this, I was under the impression that Phenom couldnt equal Intels performance, but this shows differently, andI was surprised by it
September 24, 2008 3:47:37 AM

If it's cpu limited, get intel quad, if not, cheaper duals will do just as well as expensive phenom. There is really no place for phenom. That "niche" doesn't actually exist. :p 
September 24, 2008 3:52:58 AM

dagger said:
Lol, stop wasting your breath. It's not getting through. :na: 


Well, I'm not really trying to convince to OP so much.
I'm just making sure that those less informed who may be reading, do not fall prey to not fully understanding some of the charts and think the AMD solution is as close as it may appear in some charts.
September 24, 2008 3:58:56 AM

zenmaster said:

In GPU limited Games, It does not pay to buy a Phenom.

And if you are going to drop $180 on a Phenom, get the Q6600 which always outdoes it.

The Q6600 can be had for as low as $160 for OEM and trounces all AMD Quad Cores.


Actually in GPU limited games it does not pay to buy a QUAD CORE from ANY company.

I agree: why spend $180.00 on a Phenom when you can get the 9950 for $159.00.

====================

But to use the word trounces? Interesting word.

trounce (trouns)
v. trounced, trounc·ing, trounc·es
1. To thrash; beat.
2. To defeat decisively.

Let's review the known facts as they are today and see if the word is applicable:

  • The Phenom 9950 can be had for as low as $159.00 for OEM and it has no problems competing with the Q6600 at the same price.
  • The Phenom competes easily at stock speeds based on CPU price.
  • The Phenom competes easily at average overclock speeds. (The Phenom does even better as the frequency goes up.)
  • AND LAST: Considering that Intel is getting a major portion of it's performance from a larger cache which is 400% LARGER than the Phenom's cache that means that the Phenom is actually doing a pretty good job against Intel. (Actually with a cache that big the Intel should be doing much better.)

    RESULT OF WORD REVIEW: You have selected a poor word to use to describe the comparison at this time. You are living in the past. (Or was it just wishful thinking on your part?)

    zenmaster said:

    Well, I'm not really trying to convince to OP so much.
    I'm just making sure that those less informed who may be reading, do not fall prey to not fully understanding some of the charts and think the AMD solution is as close as it may appear in some charts.


    Many Intel fanatics say that exact same thing while they are spewing out untrue statements just like you did in your earlier post.

    Luckily there are some of us here to let the less informed know that they should not fall prey to people like you.
    September 24, 2008 4:11:39 AM

    OK, so, these findings are untrue, so dont look at them? Is that what you mean, as Im "trying to get victims?" Im surprised by these findings. Are you? Or is this just some scheme? Ill let you decide heheh. Anyways, this was refreshing news to me. It appears things arent so dominated in the Intel aisle as I thought
    September 24, 2008 4:15:09 AM

    keithlm said:
    Actually in GPU limited games it does not pay to buy a QUAD CORE from ANY company.

    I agree: why spend $180.00 on a Phenom when you can get the 9950 for $159.00.

    ====================

    But to use the word trounces? Interesting word.

    trounce (trouns)
    v. trounced, trounc·ing, trounc·es
    1. To thrash; beat.
    2. To defeat decisively.

    Let's review the known facts as they are today and see if the word is applicable:

  • The Phenom 9950 can be had for as low as $159.00 for OEM and it has no problems competing with the Q6600 at the same price.
  • The Phenom competes easily at stock speeds based on CPU price.
  • The Phenom competes easily at average overclock speeds. (The Phenom does even better as the frequency goes up.)
  • AND LAST: Considering that Intel is getting a major portion of it's performance from a larger cache which is 400% LARGER than the Phenom's cache that means that the Phenom is actually doing a pretty good job against Intel. (Actually with a cache that big the Intel should be doing much better.)

    RESULT OF WORD REVIEW: You have selected a poor word to use to describe the comparison at this time. You are living in the past. (Or was it just wishful thinking on your part?)



    Many Intel fanatics say that exact same thing while they are spewing out untrue statements just like you did in your earlier post.

    Luckily there are some of us here to let the less informed know that they should not fall prey to people like you.


  • If you look at the links Provided, the 3.0Ghz Phenom lost 120FPS to 125FPS to the 2.4Ghz Q6600.
    (Provided by an AMD Fan, not me. So I'm not picking and choosing my data.)

    The Q6600 can easily hit 3.6Ghz on modest cooling and 3.8 is common with good air cooling.
    The Reviews I've seen are close to a 3.2 to 3.4 max on Air and water required for more.
    On top of that the Phenom uses more power when at the same clock.

    In summary, It loses when it is clocked 600Mhz Higher.
    If I increase the Q6600 by 50% and the Phenom by only 10% as could be reasonably be expected on air, the Phenom is really beginning to trail.

    I find the Cache Argument quite amusing.
    #1 - Intel's Cache is Twice the Size not 4 times. (2MB L2 + 2MB L3)=4MB Cache vs 8MB L2 Cache.
    #2 - It's part of the CPU Design. The 45nm chips have even more cache because the smaller manufacturing process allows room for more cache. (Still not 4x)

    I'm still not seeing the argument for the Phenom.
    Little Price Difference Up Front. (Actually if you consider required cooling costs, its likely not even there.)
    Quickly Lost due to Higher Energy Consumption.
    They need a very large Mhz advantage to even come close to matching performance, yet can't even hit the same speeds.

    September 24, 2008 4:18:06 AM

    epsilon84 said:
    Won't happen I'm afraid. Deneb is basically a die shrink with a larger L3 cache and perhaps some minor tweaks thrown in.

    Even if Deneb is a miracle Nehalem killer, boasting about it now is hardly going to give Intel much of a heads up. It takes a LOT more than a few months to create a new CPU, look how long Intel took to make a CPU that beat K8.


    A few months ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with epsilon. However, the 4800 series ATI cards were mostly a die shrink from the 3800 with a few tweaks thrown in (if I understand it correctly), and the 4800s completely changed the face of the graphics card industry over night. Is it wishful thinking that AMD is being coy in an attempt to catch Intel as flat footed as it caught NVidia? Perhaps. Is it possible that AMD is copying that ATI product release strategy? Yes.

    This is an interesting thread, regarding an interesting scenario that may be discussed in business schools for years to come. I am happy to see such good commentary coming from both sides (as there should be!!!). I have nothing constructive to add, other than simply that I want AMD to get back to being competitive so that I have a legitimate choice for my next new build. ATI's 4800 series has made the GPU industry much more interesting (i.e., better performance and cheaper), and I hope AMD can do the same for CPUs.
    a b à CPUs
    September 24, 2008 4:21:23 AM

    closed_deal said:
    Fairly interesting read, just makes me think about what actually makes any given processor/architecture good at gaming compared to synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark.

    The Phenoms in those links faired equal or just below the Intel cpu's in those game benchmarks, but in synthetic benchmarks they pail in comparison. Why is that?


    The answer is simple. Most tests (other than games) actually test the processors performance. When it comes to games, we're limited and bottlenecked by the Graphics card.

    If you really wanted to test the performance of both processors, you would need more graphics performance. In games, as it stands, with a single Graphics card they're quite competitive and have always been.

    Games are a horrible way to calculate CPU performance.
    September 24, 2008 4:23:06 AM

    JAYDEEJOHN said:
    OK, so, these findings are untrue, so dont look at them? Is that what you mean, as Im "trying to get victims?" Im surprised by these findings. Are you? Or is this just some scheme? Ill let you decide heheh. Anyways, this was refreshing news to me. It appears things arent so dominated in the Intel aisle as I thought


    I think your numbers show that Intel is still very dominant and reinforce why I would never consider a Phenom. Either I can save money on a much less expensive CPU when the horesepower is not needed and if I do need the oomph in some games, Phenom does not have it.

    So either I overspend or don't get what I need.
    Maybe in a few years AMD will have a competitve chip.

    Hopefully they will be able to continue to operate at these loses for a while longer to keep the Intel Chip prices down to a reasonable level.
    September 24, 2008 4:27:09 AM

    Glad you didnt look at these http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=3 http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775&p=6 which also shows using nVidias best card at 19x12 res, the AMD cpu within 2 fps in one game and tied in the other. Like I said, dont look at em, please. And as far as being a fanboy or whatever HAHAHAHA I could care less about AMD unless they go out of business and we end up with a monopoly and suffer for it. Hope thats somewheres in my AMD fanboy handbook, as i wouldnt want to mention anything that may look like I dont care HA HA HA
    September 24, 2008 4:33:32 AM

    jaydee that shows it is gpu limited the difference in 2 fps can be due to other factors and hardware and anomalies.

    also...

    The thing is, cache has a limit and wall per se too. There are benches that show that the cache failed to increase performance after a certain amount.
    September 24, 2008 4:45:50 AM

    Exactly my point. If the G280 is limited, then arent all the rest, EXCEPT tthe x2? What it all comes down to is balance. You can show me link where the x2 suffers more from a weaker cpu than the G280, but thats an imbalanced setup. As is alot of games even using a G280 with a Intel or Phenom. It isnt until you bring out a better gpu til you see that the Phenom is actually quite a bit slower. Thats a sur[rise
    September 24, 2008 4:52:57 AM

    So, unless youre using the fastest gpu made today, I conclude, in some games, a phenom is equal to any Intel cpus. Theres 2 games from that link that show this. The others games are cpu limited, and then the Intel cpus pull ahead. Many things make up a rig/setup. Ram has recently been seen once again with Vista 64 as being important in some games, as well as cache too. Theres more than 1 bottleneck, but the 2 main driving forces in games is the cpu and gpu, and the balance they have.
    September 24, 2008 5:03:55 AM

    Jaydee I know what you're saying, when a game is gpu limited the processor doesn't really matter as the graphics card will be mostly limiting you. You cannot say that phenoms are just as good as intels core 2 in a gpu limited game just because the difference is small, what it is saying is that the graphics card perform the same because they are the same. So on the end why spend the money on a phenom (like i did phenom 9500 b2 stepping..bahh) or intel quad when you can get a cheap dual core.
    !