Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Who is going to win the nextgeneration CPU wars? AMD or INTEL?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 14, 2008 12:45:28 PM

Ive seen a lot of benchmarks floating around on the phenom 2 and nehalem respectively and most of them show that the phenom 2 is actually, quite suprisingly outperforming the nehalem CPU. Also AMD has stated they will initiate a full launch of their new cpu on january 9th.

What do you guys think? Who will win the next generation CPU wars? AMD or INTEL?
December 14, 2008 12:54:29 PM

First of all we really can't know yet.
But where did you find the Phenom 2 benchmarks?
December 14, 2008 1:10:58 PM

I too would like to see some Phenom 2 benchmarks if they are indeed out there. However I don't care which one outperforms infact I would like both of them to give around the same performance that way both have to compete purely on pricing.

Intel is however more likely to give the better preforming CPU while AMD will give us lower prices. Also doesn't anyone else think that AMD releasing their new CPU after the holidays is just a bad idea?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
December 14, 2008 1:12:52 PM

Intel, just simply because phenom 2 would have to be 100% faster than the first generation phenom, and Nehalem is only 25% faster than the generation before. I know AMD can pull a rabbit out of its hat, but chances are it wont be this round.

If AMD can make a octo-core or even 6-core processor close to the price of intel's mainstream line, they would win. We have no real use for that many cores but it would fool the public into buying it.

But actually, if they had a way to fool the computer into seeing half the cores (Hyper threading reversed) and make 1 thread run on 2 or even 4 cores it would have amazing results.
a c 172 à CPUs
December 14, 2008 1:16:36 PM

Well, with all the theoretical superiority of the Phenom, current C2Q's stomp them into the mud in the desktop arena. First and second generation Core2 CPU's are underclocked at least two speed bins. And Nehalem seems to be about 30 - 40% faster than the Core2's.

It's possible that AMD can pull a rabbit out of the hat. I hope they do; competition is good. But I doubt it.

We will find out in a few weeks.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2008 1:26:11 PM

Right-O. I too would like to see these "phenominal" benchies, especially since the NDA hasn't been lifted yet on the Phe-2 - this coming week on the 18th last I heard.

I suspect Phe-2 might fall somewhere between Core2 and Penryn once independent 3rd party benches are online.
December 14, 2008 1:30:20 PM

fugben said:
Ive seen a lot of benchmarks floating around on the phenom 2 and nehalem respectively and most of them show that the phenom 2 is actually, quite suprisingly outperforming the nehalem CPU. Also AMD has stated they will initiate a full launch of their new cpu on january 9th.

What do you guys think? Who will win the next generation CPU wars? AMD or INTEL?


please share all these benchmarks of the Phenom2 with us. all i have seen with one exception of one that evaporated into thin air are from AMD marketing. they very well may be everything they claim but i want to see it from some other source before i become a believer. the timing will be good. i have a buyer for my motherboard, cpu and ram right after Christmas so it will be one or the other for sure.
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2008 1:40:52 PM

Well, since there are no real benches (that I've seen) I'll just speculate. From what I've seen from web rumors and AMD demos, I think Phenom II could be competitive for games with i7, especially once it gets DDR3. As for most other apps, it'll probably get clobbered (especially those that use hyperthreading).
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2008 1:41:42 PM

^+1.
December 14, 2008 2:27:55 PM

Allow me to respond with some similarly impossable to answer questions...

Who will be elected president in 2012?

Who will win the Super Bowl in 2010?

Untill we see PhenomII, this question is pointless.
December 14, 2008 2:47:57 PM

+1 B-Unit
December 14, 2008 3:18:51 PM

roofus said:
+1 B-Unit

lol, agreed :p 
December 14, 2008 3:40:05 PM

unreal.
if it were that good, amd would be leaking benchmarks of the phenom II to prevent consumers buying the core i7 and wait for the phenom.

December 14, 2008 3:44:14 PM

i have said similar in other places on this forum zodiac. they have a peculiar marketing department (a polite way of saying stupid) but that doesn't mean that the CPU is a dud. it could be the next great thing from AMD but i find their marketing for it thus far to really stink.
December 14, 2008 3:53:58 PM

omg how can we overlook VIA! the sleeping gentle giant. the day of reckoning is coming!
December 14, 2008 4:02:41 PM

VIA4LIFE!!!!
December 14, 2008 4:04:02 PM

Also, S3 will be wearing the performance crown at the end of 2009. Intel might as well cancel Larabee.
December 14, 2008 4:08:07 PM

Im right on the VIRGE of swicthing
December 14, 2008 4:40:56 PM

ARM processors FTW xD
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2008 8:26:05 PM

ATM i think the Brain still has the edge...

The only issue with the Brain, by Human Evolution (owner god) is that it is EXTREMELY hard to program and hasn't yet been figured out how to attach to your standard motherboard
December 14, 2008 8:57:12 PM

OP came in saying Deneb beats Nehalem without actual link source,and one more thing what kinda benchmark you are talking about,if you are talking about single card gaming performance,you could probably outperform i7 with a core 2 duo(in some categories),save core 2 quad.So that's worthless to mention in the first place,you know what get a benchmark with i7 Vs Deneb with Encoding/Rendering results,or if you are really that much into gaming do a multiple GPU(Sli/Crossfire) setup,single GPU performance was known to be GPU bottlenecked long before i7 launch,making that Deneb faster than i7 in your statement really makes you sound ignorant in your statement.(Tired of seeing AMD fanboys blindly supporting AMD like AMD would pay for their Loyalty :p  )
December 14, 2008 8:58:18 PM

Viva VIA!!! Oh wait, that was an old movie starring Charles Bronson and Yul Bennar, oh what the HELL Long live VIA!!!
December 14, 2008 9:27:58 PM

while that chart looks beautiful, look at the source, then try to follow it. jaydee found that last week.
December 14, 2008 9:31:15 PM

Yeah, expreview for 1 then taken down for 2. Who lmows? It could be good, or it could have been done for hits and giggles
December 14, 2008 9:32:32 PM

yea i still think the possibility it was put up early and forced down. we will all have our answers in mere days now!
December 15, 2008 2:54:01 AM

Not sure whos read this, but starting at this page, and looking forwards to tomorrow, theres a few synthetic and gaming benches, plus Vcores ocing etc. If this is an indicator, i7 has some competition here
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20...
Moreso in gaming, and definately cost/perf in gaming, plus possibly ocing as well
December 15, 2008 3:08:54 AM

Nice...
December 15, 2008 3:49:49 AM

What I find most intriguing about the info is, its all done without ACC, as its not tuned yet, and also, its not the AM3 version, which is supposed to be even faster IPC or total perf wise.

Also, the 940, being a BE can oc nicely on older 690 mobos too, which was a major concern.
December 15, 2008 10:08:05 AM

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20...

Quote:
Now as i know some were wondering about gaming performance i'll just paste in what i was explaining to my uncle when i was telling him how his little gift was faring

the 9850 would let me run the game in 1920x1200 with rendering options maxed out and draw/detail distance at 15/100 and the ingame benchmark reported those settings used 94% of the video card memory, 88% of all 4 cores on the cpu, 85% of the system memory With Average of 25 Frames per second

That was with cpu overclocked to 3.4ghz and memory speed @ 1066mhz

The phenom 2 lets me run 1920x1200 with rendering options maxed out and draw/detail distance at 32/100 and the ingame benchmark reported those settings used 98% of the video card memory, 64% of all 4 cores on the cpu, 65% of the system memory With Average of 58 Frames per second with cpu at stock speed of 3.0 Ghz and memory speed @ 800mhz


by: iocedmyself
December 15, 2008 10:31:37 AM

GTA IV benchmarks on page 15. Does anyone have a 3+ Ghz Nehalem or Penryn coupled with a 4870X2 to compare?
December 15, 2008 3:53:21 PM

I wouldn't fully trust GTA IV benches; at least I wouldn't read them without analysis.

Quote:
(iocedmyself)
the 9850 would let me run the game in 1920x1200 with rendering options maxed out and draw/detail distance at 15/100 and the ingame benchmark reported those settings used 94% of the video card memory, 88% of all 4 cores on the cpu, 85% of the system memory With Average of 25 Frames per second

That was with cpu overclocked to 3.4ghz and memory speed @ 1066mhz

The phenom 2 lets me run 1920x1200 with rendering options maxed out and draw/detail distance at 32/100 and the ingame benchmark reported those settings used 98% of the video card memory, 64% of all 4 cores on the cpu, 65% of the system memory With Average of 58 Frames per second with cpu at stock speed of 3.0 Ghz and memory speed @ 800mhz

GTA-IV is a 3-thread game, and Windows bounces the threads around the cores so that Task Manager doesn't reveal to you when the cores are bottlenecked. The benchmark reports maximum CPU utilization, not average. The max utilization for both the PhI and PhII is actually capped at 75% on those quads, but the report will always show higher for a bottlenecked chip due to system processes.

64% for the PhII means that the CPU isn't bottlenecked. The PhI bench is flawed because some time during the bench, the CPU was using at least half of one core for a non-game process. (The bench should be rerun on the PhI setup.)

Draw distance for some reason has the reverse of the expected effect - there are cases of increased draw distance directly leading to increased FPS.

Compared to the lone i7 screenshot of GTA-IV (where HT was quite obviously enabled), I'd peg the PhII at considerably behind for this game, based on max utilization. But we are talking about a 4870x2 generally being the bottleneck, not the CPU. If the CPU isn't the bottleneck, who cares about getting one even faster? Only for a future GPU upgrade, not for the system as is.

As for the other benches, SuperPi is obviously taken with a grain of salt. SiSoft synthetics look mildly better than PhI, but don't seem comparable to i7. I have an i7 HT @ 3.34GHz stock reporting inter-core bandwidth of 41.32GB/s with inter-core latency at 15ns, so either the software is flawed and/or Nehalem is a very different design.
December 15, 2008 4:08:30 PM

"Draw distance for some reason has the reverse of the expected effect - there are cases of increased draw distance directly leading to increased FPS" OK, this doesnt make sense. Is this also true on P1? Or exclusive to Intel, as we see that at least i7 can do the gfx drivers in multi card setups better, and Im still not certain the cpu is faster yet, but handles nVidia multi card setups, thru the driver better. Once we get better drivers from ATI or newer cards from them, then we will know, but until someone actually takes a thorough look at this, I cant just mark it down as i7 being faster, at least not yet
December 15, 2008 6:19:27 PM

I don't mean that draw distance is now generally proportional to FPS - just that alterations to draw distance have led to inconsistent reports and that it would be inappropriate to fail to hold other settings constant when benching between two CPUs - in this case, measuring the improvement from Phenom to Phenom II.

I believe this inconsistency is platform independent, though it was observed on Phenom II only because it was heavily tested in that thread. It's likely how the game was coded.

While drivers may be to blame for slow fps performance, in this case the i7 was at ~60% peak utilization on affected cores while churning out 61(?) fps, while the Phenom II was at ~91% peak while churning out 55 fps. Generally a driver problem would manifest itself in low utilization *and* low fps, as if the GPU were a large bottleneck. It would take a feature addition to swing those out of proportion - something like PhysX, where something previously destined for CPU processing is rerouted to a now-capable GPU.
a b à CPUs
December 16, 2008 8:02:53 PM

No matter who wins I still win!
December 18, 2008 9:10:45 AM

fazers_on_stun said:
Right-O. I too would like to see these "phenominal" benchies, especially since the NDA hasn't been lifted yet on the Phe-2 - this coming week on the 18th last I heard.

I suspect Phe-2 might fall somewhere between Core2 and Penryn once independent 3rd party benches are online.



Well not quite.

Phenom II vs Qx9770 vs Cur i7

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/asrock/ASRock-AOD790G-12...


Enjoy the read
- no grafx - exact number results
- several benches, synth, games, encode, etc.


sigh
.
!